# Garage boss: I'm being driven out of Hackney by hipsters



## editor (Mar 27, 2015)

Another tragic tale of the big sell out of London. This shit has to end soon. 


> A motor repairs boss today hit out at the “arty types” he says are colonising east London as he prepared to leave his business of two decades to make way for a craft brewery.
> 
> When Michael Vallance came to Queens Yard industrial estate in  Hackney Wick in 1992 it was home to lithographic printers and finishers and a glass factory.
> 
> ...


----------



## Greebo (Mar 27, 2015)

Ought to end soon, but won't.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 27, 2015)

I am in the hub of this and we have had to relocate our main operation to Tottenham, soon it will be Tottenhams turn . 

Our old premises in Hackney was at the centre of a fight against developers people (including a car mechanics) who had been there for decades were forced out, many having to close their businesses. When the developers (who were Orthodox Jews) won the day they sold the development to another consortium of Orthodox Jews for 10 million. Now these current developers want a bigger development, in the meantime they have decided to relet the crumbling decaying buildings (neglected by all owners over decades) with prices increased by up to 1000%

A 2500 sq foot space which is a wreck, is currently on offer at a staggering 1443.00 per week, we occupied this building up until 18 months ago our rent was 170.00.

The place is being taken on by film companies and set developers.

When the place was originally emptied out we were given a stay of execution and a new lease by the old developer for two years, we are still there so we know exactly what is going on. The current owners either want to whack our rent up from 10k a year to 100k a year or have us out. Here's another rub what we didn't realise at the time was that we were allowed to stay not through the charity of the previous developers, but because it allowed them to sell to the other developers on the basis of the site being a 'going concern' business and therefor not subject to 2 million VAT hike. On top of the 10million sale tag. We aside from one other entrenched occupant are the only people left on site.

I understand the need for housing but London is morphing into Manhattan where only the rich will be able to afford, there is no consideration for affordable space for small businesses.

And incidently I mention the orthodox Jewish aspect for a reason as they are at the core of many of these developments having sat on many decaying commercial properties in Hackney for decades, they operate very secretly they appear not sell to 'outsiders' I know we tried to buy the site to keep as a business hub, any other communities would have negotiated or considered, they are a very closed shop when it comes to property.

Hackney is fucked for the working classes. I am all for improving areas but there has to be a balance in all aspects including business and workspace, the property market in London is insane. Small businesses are following working people out of London.


----------



## Santino (Mar 27, 2015)

Oy vey


----------



## Sparkle Motion (Mar 27, 2015)

My factory left Hackney for suburbia in the 1980s. 

Might as well stand on the beach ordering the tide not to come in.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 27, 2015)

Sparkle Motion said:


> Might as well stand on the beach ordering the tide not to come in.



Yes, everyone is a gentrifier. Everyone enjoys facilities that are only there because they were built on that which formed part of previous communities. Such are cities.


----------



## Choc (Mar 27, 2015)

gosh batboy this is terrible. Its right to bring this up to light, can you send your experience to journalists. i know people know to an extent what is going on, but its still such a good insight as like you say big business usually gets passed on among the wealthy/groups who are not keen to have their methods and returns exposed.

i am fearing this trend to be a worldwide trend there are similar stories (though not such high prices) in other capital cities.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 27, 2015)

awful shit going on , admittedly I benefit from rising house prices but I could end up living somewhere with no services that I need.


----------



## toblerone3 (Mar 27, 2015)

The hipsters moving in will probably have lower levels of car ownership than the working class communities being forced out.  So increasing demand for craft beer and decreasing demand for car garages.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 27, 2015)

Choc said:


> gosh batboy this is terrible. Its right to bring this up to light, can you send your experience to journalists. i know people know to an extent what is going on, but its still such a good insight as like you say big business usually gets passed on among the wealthy/groups who are not keen to have their methods and returns exposed.
> 
> i am fearing this trend to be a worldwide trend there are similar stories (though not such high prices) in other capital cities.



I almost get slated on these forums for not being a stereotypically left wing urbanite, I run a small manufacturing business and we are being hammered to the point I almost wish I had adopted the 'lets just buy property and become landlords' stance like so many people have, including those who have regular jobs , the same thing happened in the 80's until the market crashed, I knew one woman who at 28 had bought 17 properties and lost the lot. She never ever ran a proper business and employ permanent people. I actually didn't feel sorry for her.

This time around it is far more profound as globalisation has seen London swarmed with overseas investors out to make a quick buck, the Chinese and Russian nouveau rich will flee once they have made money and take it to another country.

Ironically small businesses and working class people should really pull together instead of dividing along political lines. The other irony is the whole Tory/Labour thing if anyone thinks that The Tories are pro small business then they are deluded especially in London. Labour Party is a fucking joke too they don't represent working people they go through the motions with tokenism politics and from a small business perspective they put obstacles in the way that only larger businesses can cope with.

Should there be a global property slump (a real long overdue possibility) then there will be huge pain for many people who ultimately will pay the price for lack of a regulated property market. 

As regards the Hackney debacle the developers operated within the confines of the law, so nothing criminal was committed, it is just immoral and driven by greed.

Nobody loves London and Hackney more than me, I like seeing regeneration but not at the expenses of either small businesses or regular working people.
People need houses and tangible jobs the two have to be constructed together, our economy in London over the last 15 years has been built on the back of property inflation. It cannot continue like this.


----------



## quiquaquo (Mar 27, 2015)

Can't stand hipsters but the the blame here seems to lie fairly and squarely with Orthodox developers according to what Batboy reports.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 27, 2015)

"They operate very secretly"

FFS.


----------



## toblerone3 (Mar 27, 2015)

What does a hipster Orthodox Jew look like?


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 27, 2015)

Eventually the hipsters get squeezed out by Russian and Chinese money, this is already happening with some amount of squealing and a bit more attention from the media than WC communities would ever get.

Last week I was chatting to someone who lives in Sydney who said lots of British graphic designers had moved there recently, giving up on the London bullshit where you have no chance of settling anywhere properly. From their account Sydney isn't much better (centre flooded with expensive new-builds bought primarily by Chinese investors, city suburbs already out of reach of most) but maybe a little bit behind London.

I know a fair few people who have or are about to relocate back to the north from London too. It's getting hollowed out.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 27, 2015)

toblerone3 said:


> What does a hipster Orthodox Jew look like?



Unfortunately, they operate in furtive corners where they can't be photographed. The socialism of fools, and there's more of it on Urban than one might expect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> It's getting hollowed out.


given the paltry number of people who live in the city, and the historically low number of people who live in the west end, i think it's been hollowed out for quite some time. in fact it's amazing the population of london's so high when so many people can't afford to live here any more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

toblerone3 said:


> What does a hipster Orthodox Jew look like?


if they look anything like a punk orthodox jew then they look like er an orthodox jew.


----------



## quiquaquo (Mar 27, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> if they look anything like a punk orthodox jew then they look like er an orthodox jew.




http://hipsterjew.com/tag/njb/


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

Batboy said:


> People need houses and tangible jobs the two have to be constructed together, our economy in London over the last 15 years has been built on the back of property inflation. It cannot continue like this.


& where it hasn't been built on property inflation it's been built on financial shenanigans in the city.


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 27, 2015)

Density even in existing housing has been increasing for years as housing is split into flats, pubs converted into shoebox flats etc.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 27, 2015)

And whose fault is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2015)

Batboy said:


> And incidently I mention the orthodox Jewish aspect for a reason as they are at the core of many of these developments having sat on many decaying commercial properties in Hackney for decades, they operate very secretly they appear not sell to 'outsiders' I know we tried to buy the site to keep as a business hub, any other communities would have negotiated or considered, they are a very closed shop when it comes to property.




And their key characteristic is not in being property owning rent-seeking landlords but their orthodox jewishness. Like yours isn't profit seeking boss - but concerned local.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

Batboy said:


> I am in the hub of this and we have had to relocate our main operation to Tottenham, soon it will be Tottenhams turn .
> 
> Our old premises in Hackney was at the centre of a fight against developers people (including a car mechanics) who had been there for decades were forced out, many having to close their businesses. When the developers (who were Orthodox Jews) won the day they sold the development to another consortium of Orthodox Jews for 10 million. Now these current developers want a bigger development, in the meantime they have decided to relet the crumbling decaying buildings (neglected by all owners over decades) with prices increased by up to 1000%
> 
> ...


so what you're saying is - as others have pointed out - it's all the jews. not the council, which as we all know  has the best interests of local residents and small businesses at heart.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 27, 2015)

So, did I get this right? It's nothing to do with capital, but its all down to those joos?


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 27, 2015)

Batboy said:


> I am in the hub of this and we have had to relocate our main operation to Tottenham, soon it will be Tottenhams turn .
> 
> Our old premises in Hackney was at the centre of a fight against developers people (including a car mechanics) who had been there for decades were forced out, many having to close their businesses. When the developers (who were Orthodox Jews) won the day they sold the development to another consortium of Orthodox Jews for 10 million. Now these current developers want a bigger development, in the meantime they have decided to relet the crumbling decaying buildings (neglected by all owners over decades) with prices increased by up to 1000%
> 
> ...



What relevance does their being Jewish have?


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 27, 2015)

Oh, I see, we've already asked that.  Sorry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

Batboy said:


> I almost get slated on these forums for not being a stereotypically left wing urbanite, I run a small manufacturing business and we are being hammered to the point I almost wish I had adopted the 'lets just buy property and become landlords' stance like so many people have, including those who have regular jobs , the same thing happened in the 80's until the market crashed, I knew one woman who at 28 had bought 17 properties and lost the lot. She never ever ran a proper business and employ permanent people. I actually didn't feel sorry for her.
> 
> This time around it is far more profound as globalisation has seen London swarmed with overseas investors out to make a quick buck, the Chinese and Russian nouveau rich will flee once they have made money and take it to another country.
> 
> ...


do you have a jewish landlord in tottenham?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2015)

Wait, we have the diamond situation to come yet - _my partner is jewish, i know what i'm on about._


----------



## Brainaddict (Mar 27, 2015)

Batboy, sorry to hear about your situation. I do think you should think about some of that phrasing. What you describe is simply how all developers behave. They are secretive so as to keep out the competition, do dodgy deals with the council and with their mates/family, don't give a fuck about anyone else. They behave, by and large, like scum. I just don't think it is helpful to identify their ethnicity as an issue.


----------



## andysays (Mar 27, 2015)

Batboy said:


> ...I mention the orthodox Jewish aspect for a reason as they are at the core of many of these developments having sat on many decaying commercial properties in Hackney for decades, they operate very secretly they appear not sell to 'outsiders' ...



Unlike all other commercial developers who operate completely openly and wouldn't dream of operating any sort of network which excludes percieved outsiders, I suppose...

It's a shame that this thread had now been effectively derailed by your pointless and idiotic comment.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 27, 2015)

Can I recommend people read a report on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? that explains exactly how to skew the property market in Hackney in favour of a small well organised conspiracy.


----------



## cesare (Mar 27, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> Batboy, sorry to hear about your situation. I do think you should think about some of that phrasing. What you describe is simply how all developers behave. They are secretive so as to keep out the competition, do dodgy deals with the council and with their mates/family, don't give a fuck about anyone else. They behave, by and large, like scum. I just don't think it is helpful to identify their ethnicity as an issue.


Nicely put.


----------



## andysays (Mar 27, 2015)

toblerone3 said:


> What does a hipster Orthodox Jew look like?



Hey, they were growing beards and other distinctive hair features long before it was fashionable


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 27, 2015)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 27, 2015)

Is this bubble not gonna burst when all those trust funds finally run out? A small industrial unit at over £1000 a week, there's no way that space is ever gonna be profitable unless it's used as a meth lab or something. 

Maybe this whole hipster thing is just being used as a money pit to create losses for the benefit of the taxman. Whatever income you can't move offshore, you just give it to your idiot children to piss down the drain.


----------



## Nylock (Mar 27, 2015)

Batboy said:


> ...When the developers (who were Orthodox Jews) won the day they sold the development to another consortium of Orthodox Jews for 10 million...


The urge to be a dodgy, secretive, mendacious, grasping, tax-avoiding scumbag is blind to colour and creed. Why mention their Jewishness? There are plenty of cunts in your part of the world (the S.E.) and, indeed, everywhere else who indulge in such practises and they aren't Jews -orthodox or otherwise.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 27, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Is this bubble not gonna burst when all those trust funds finally run out? A small industrial unit at over £1000 a week, there's no way that space is ever gonna be profitable unless it's used as a meth lab or something.
> 
> Maybe this whole hipster thing is just being used as a money pit to create losses for the benefit of the taxman. Whatever income you can't move offshore, you just give it to your idiot children to piss down the drain.


It's not powered by trust funds or in fact "arty types" at all. The young moneyed middle classes have certain fashions but it's no different to going to wine bars and listening to Huey Lewis & The News in the 80s. Yuppies selling to yuppies.


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2015)

editor said:


> Another tragic tale of the big sell out of London. This shit has to end soon.




Who owns these craft breweries, pop up businesses, surely you have to have money to launch them?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 27, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> So, did I get this right? It's nothing to do with capital, but its all down to those joos?



Worse than Hitler.


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2015)

toblerone3 said:


> The hipsters moving in will probably have lower levels of car ownership than the working class communities being forced out.  So increasing demand for craft beer and decreasing demand for car garages.




but more bike workshops, and the cycle of life goes on

actually, gentrification is not a 'natural process' as some on here seem to think, in Berlin it is being robustly opposed.


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2015)

> This time around it is far more profound as globalisation has seen London swarmed with overseas investors out to make a quick buck, the Chinese and Russian nouveau rich will flee once they have made money and take it to another country.



this, countries are for sale now just as labour has been.


----------



## xenon (Mar 27, 2015)

TBH factories in Hackneywick replaced housing that was there in the early 20C. My Great Grandmother lived on the street adjacent to that White House Crate place. Which business did his 23 year old one replace.

There's always been population churn in London. Important not to confuse that with wider property price crisis and trickle up economics.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> but more bike workshops, and the cycle of life goes on
> 
> actually, gentrification is not a 'natural process' as some on here seem to think, in Berlin it is being robustly opposed.


Amazing - you suggest that the process is natural then moan that people on here think the process is natural! 

Are you quite sure that you'd be supportive of berlin style actions over here? If cars started getting torched, if people had paint thrown on them, had hot food thrown on them etc


----------



## Crispy (Mar 27, 2015)

xenon said:


> trickle up economics.


Hah! I like that.
(or rather, I fucking hate that)


----------



## Boycey (Mar 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> Who owns these craft breweries, pop up businesses, surely you have to have money to launch them?



*Cough*

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/cocaine-smuggling-brewery-boss-held--in-vat-raid-9905800.html


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Eventually the hipsters get squeezed out by Russian and Chinese money, this is already happening with some amount of squealing and a bit more attention from the media than WC communities would ever get.
> 
> Last week I was chatting to someone who lives in Sydney who said lots of British graphic designers had moved there recently, giving up on the London bullshit where you have no chance of settling anywhere properly. From their account Sydney isn't much better (centre flooded with expensive new-builds bought primarily by Chinese investors, city suburbs already out of reach of most) but maybe a little bit behind London.
> 
> I know a fair few people who have or are about to relocate back to the north from London too. It's getting hollowed out.



The Chinese economy is stalling(see excellent thread on global economy) what would happen if there was a economic crash in china?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> The Chinese economy is stalling(see excellent thread on global economy) what would happen if there was a economic crash in china?


the hipsters would be driven out of hackney at the hands of a vengeful mob.

next.


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's not powered by trust funds or in fact "arty types" at all. The young moneyed middle classes have certain fashions but it's no different to going to wine bars and listening to Huey Lewis & The News in the 80s. Yuppies selling to yuppies.




yes, but now they have colonised the space that allowed for anyone to be bohemian, different, etc, you need a lot of cash to have the full on hipster look/lifestyle,


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Amazing - you suggest that the process is natural then moan that people on here think the process is natural!
> 
> Are you quite sure that you'd be supportive of berlin style actions over here? If cars started getting torched, if people had paint thrown on them, had hot food thrown on them etc




The first comment was sarcasm, no I don't support violence on the individual, the remaining communities should if they can get more organised, like the Focus mums have.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2015)

I'm all in favour of new, small(ish) breweries, even (sometimes!  ) when they annoyingly term themselves 'craft'. And we bloody well need more of them here in or near Wales more than London needs them.

But in the case of the story in the OP, *all* my sympathies are with the garage man.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> But in the case of the story in the OP, *all* my sympathies are with the garage man.


Why, precisely?


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2015)

kabbes : As much as anything else, because of what he said about dying old trades/businesses being pushed out by spiralling property prices.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm all in favour of new, small(ish) breweries, even (sometimes!  ) when they annoyingly term themselves 'craft'. And we bloody well need more of them here in or near Wales more than London needs them.
> 
> But in the case of the story in the OP, *all* my sympathies are with the garage man.


yeh cos you can't get better than a kwik-fit fitter


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm all in favour of new, small(ish) breweries, even (sometimes!  ) when they annoyingly term themselves 'craft'. And we bloody well need more of them here in or near Wales more than London needs them.



If I were opening a brewery I'd open it in Wales, or the midlands, or somewhere where a few extra jobs would be more sorely needed. More importantly, commercial rents would be much cheaper. And you'd not be diving in to such an overcrowded market.

As for 'craft' beer, the only thing this ever seems to mean is that the beer comes in smaller containers and costs more money. It also implies the existence of non-craft beer, where they presumaby just chuck a load of stuff in a bucket, leave it for a few weeks and hope for the best. It's beer. There are only four ingredients. Where do you get off claiming that you put more 'craft' into yours athan anywhere else?

Most of these 'craft' microbreweries use modern, automated equipment anyway. The brewing equivalent of a breadmaker.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2015)

There's actually no agreed definition of 'craft'. By anyone, and certainly not within CAMRA, where there are more types of disagreements about it than there are relevant  breweries. 

So in short I agree with you SpookyFrank


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 27, 2015)

I love CAMRA, such a delightfully old-fashioned bunch.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> kabbes : As much as anything else, because of what he said about dying old trades/businesses being pushed out by spiralling property prices.


Dying old trades like garage businesses?

He said it so it's true?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 27, 2015)

Aren't CAMRA still fiercely debating whether it's acceptable to drink, or even acknowledge the existence, of craft beer?


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2015)

I meant the other trades he mentioned more than garages really. But if garages of that type really are having to shut down** to be replaced by much more upmarket property development, then that signifies something pretty unhealthy IMO.

 **(and if you're questioning whether that's true, say why maybe?)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 27, 2015)

I expect there probably is less of a market for car repair services these days. It seems quite common for people to fuck off a fairly new, perfectly decent car and just buy a new one. My sister seems to have some kind of financing deal going that actively encourages her to get a new car every two years, it's mental.

e2a: And there's probably less bits of a modern car that a mechanic can actually fix. If the computer's gone on your new Audi I daresay you have to get Audi to sort it out for you, not Brian from down the road.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 27, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Aren't CAMRA still fiercely debating whether it's acceptable to drink, or even acknowledge the existence, of craft beer?



Well I don't drink it because it comes in tiny cans or bottles, costs more than normal beer and seems to be made by marketing people rather than actual brewers. Places that sell the stuff on draught are invariably packed floor to celing with cunts.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Aren't CAMRA still fiercely debating whether it's acceptable to drink, or even acknowledge the existence, of craft beer?




Exactly! I'm ecumenical about the matter myself, because there's some cracking mictro-breweries around. But you don't want to know how much disgreement there is all over the shop about it -- you get squabbles about it in so many beer-friendly pubs and at beer festivals. I tend just to go to the bar when such outbreaks get tedious ... ie quite soon ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Aren't CAMRA still fiercely debating whether it's acceptable to drink, or even acknowledge the existence, of craft beer?


exception for the masonick camra members, who have long acknowledged the existence of fellow craft beer


----------



## Crispy (Mar 27, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Dying old trades like garage businesses?
> 
> He said it so it's true?



Network rail have policies in place in some areas that expressly forbid car-related business in new railway arch leases, for example. I believe this is the case in Loughborough Junction and Herne Hill.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well I don't drink it because it comes in tiny cans or bottles, costs more than normal beer and seems to be made by marketing people rather than actual brewers. Places that sell the stuff on draught are invariably packed floor to celing with cunts.




It's all about which ones. What you say about overpricing is true of plenty, but that's not universal IME.

I'm also *at times* prepared to pay _reasonably_ (ie slightly!) over-the-odds for genuine quality and taste (festivaldeb claims the best ones tend to be stronger ABV ones  but I dispute that .... sometimres  ). 

I'm resistant to infuriating hipster-aimed marketing though. Brewdog I'm looking at you!


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Network rail have policies in place in some areas that expressly forbid car-related business in new railway arch leases, for example. I believe this is the case in Loughborough Junction and Herne Hill.



Why is that? sounds rather strange.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I expect there probably is less of a market for car repair services these days. It seems quite common for people to fuck off a fairly new, perfectly decent car and just buy a new one. My sister seems to have some kind of financing deal going that actively encourages her to get a new car every two years, it's mental.
> 
> e2a: And there's probably less bits of a modern car that a mechanic can actually fix. If the computer's gone on your new Audi I daresay you have to get Audi to sort it out for you, not Brian from down the road.




Interesting -- festivaldeb has an N-reg Astra (from 1996 I think!) and she gets odd repairs done now and again in the old style mechanics' place round the cprner. But this is Swansea, not Hackney!

She intends to keep driving it til it falls apart, but she's definitely in the minority there, given the affordability -- unless you're completely skint -- of new/nearly new cars.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> I meant the other trades he mentioned more than garages really. But if garages of that type really are having to shut down** to be replaced by much more upmarket property development, then that signifies something pretty unhealthy IMO.
> 
> **(and if you're questioning whether that's true, say why maybe?)


I have no reason to believe things one way or other based in the words of a failed mechanic.  You're the one leaping in to take a side here, not me.

Why is a garage a sign of a healthier community than is a microbrewery?  I would have thought you would think the opposite.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Network rail have policies in place in some areas that expressly forbid car-related business in new railway arch leases, for example. I believe this is the case in Loughborough Junction and Herne Hill.




Is that because they're scared of possible explosions or whatever?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Is that because they're scared of possible explosions or whatever?


they don't want the competition


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I have no reason to believe things one way or other based in the words of a failed mechanic.  You're the one leaping in to take a side here, not me.
> 
> Why is a garage a sign of a healthier community than is a microbrewery?  I would have thought you would think the opposite.




You're just arguing for the sake of it now I think. I've had my say about both. It's not about garages specifically anyway (as I said, other tradtional trades that used to thrive in 'cheap' areas may also be suffering). Gentrification/exploding property prices represent something much wider.

Got to go now!


----------



## Sweet FA (Mar 27, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> My sister seems to have some kind of financing deal going that actively encourages her to get a new car every two years, it's mental


Leasing. Mrs FA got a new (to her) car last year and was bombarded with lease deals - £130 pm and you can have a brand new motor, trade in for a new model in 2 years, renew the lease (if you haven't fucked the first car up) and get another new one. It's how footballers etc get Lamborghinis/Astons etc. Few grand a month and it's yours(ish). Stop paying the lease and all of a sudden it's not yours.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> they don't want the competition




A car in for repair means an extra train journey possibly 

Short term gain ...


----------



## kabbes (Mar 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> You're just arguing for the sake of it now I think. I've had my say about both. It's not about garages specifically anyway (as I said, other tradtional trades that used to thrive in 'cheap' areas may also be suffering). Gentrification/exploding property prices represent something much wider.
> 
> Got to go now!


This thread is about a specific business making way for another one, though.  It offers no data about gentrification generally.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Is that because they're scared of possible explosions or whatever?


It's gentrification pure and simple. Garage businesses tend to put off other potential tenants due to the large amounts of vehicles being moved around, and the tendency (real or imagined) of such businesses to attract "undesirable" types. Get rid of the garages and they can more easily justify charging twice the rent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> A car in for repair means an extra train journey possibly
> 
> Short term gain ...


but for the driver the chances are long term pain


----------



## kabbes (Mar 27, 2015)

> When Michael Vallance came to Queens Yard industrial estate in Hackney Wick in 1992 it was home to lithographic printers and finishers and a glass factory.



I have to question the tone too, based on this line.  He was a breeze-in driving out traditional printers and finishers and glass makers as recently as the 1990s.  Why is his departure now a sign of anything other than the fact that businesses come and go?


----------



## Sparkle Motion (Mar 27, 2015)

It seems you can still get your car repaired in Central London.

http://www.belgraviagarage.com/about/history/

Is this not just the normal evolution of a city? I moved out to a nice little village in the Home Counties which is about to be swamped by thousands of new houses that will probably be bought by priced out Londoners. I wish it wasn't so, but an expanding population needs somewhere to live.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 27, 2015)

kabbes said:


> This thread is about a specific business making way for another one, though.  It offers no data about gentrification generally.


In this instance it does, given that the existing place is being taken over for storage for a brewery, bar and pizzeria in the same area. The fact that these exist at all in a former industrial estate offers data regarding changes in the local area.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 27, 2015)

The existing place was previously a home for printers and finishers.  So what have we learnt?

Industrial zones get used for industry.  This is one single anecdote, fleshed out by the complaints of a man with a chip on his shoulder because he has to leave.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

kabbes said:


> The existing place was previously a home for printers and finishers.  So what have we learnt?
> 
> Industrial zones get used for industry.  This is one single anecdote, fleshed out by the complaints of a man with a chip on his shoulder because he has to leave.


because of the jews


----------



## Sue (Mar 27, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's not powered by trust funds or in fact "arty types" at all. The young moneyed middle classes have certain fashions but it's no different to going to wine bars and listening to Huey Lewis & The News in the 80s. Yuppies selling to yuppies.



I'd say a lot of it is fuelled by family money. I've come across two couples recently who live near me in Hackney and have recently bought flats. Both sets are in their twenties and there's no way they're earning enough to be able to afford £500k flats without a serious injection of cash from somewhere.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 27, 2015)

Crispy said:


> It's gentrification pure and simple. Garage businesses tend to put off other potential tenants due to the large amounts of vehicles being moved around, and the tendency (real or imagined) of such businesses to attract "undesirable" types. Get rid of the garages and they can more easily justify charging twice the rent.



IMO that's true.  The shady back-street mechanic fixing up old bangers under the railway arch is a cliche with a lot of truth behind it, and I imagine Network Rail think this is a bit downmarket and not good for their image - and by extension not good for their ability to attract higher-paying tenants.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 27, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> because of the jews



The very secret orthodox Jews.

I'd like to meet a paradox Jew.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 27, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> IMO that's true.  The shady back-street mechanic fixing up old bangers under the railway arch is a cliche with a lot of truth behind it.



Exactly - we've all seen The Sweeney. It's a front for a racket innit.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Interesting -- feastivaldeb has an N-reg Astra (from 1996 I think!) and she gets odd repairs done now and again in the old style mechanics' place round the cprner. But this is Swansea, not Hackney!
> 
> She intends to keep driving it til it falls apart, but she's definitely in the minority there, given the affordability -- unless you're completely skint -- of new/nearly new cars.


I get my car looked after my a garage on my street in Hackney,  great place , all the car owners on the street use him I think, hopefully he won't sell out to a craft brewery  (even though I love ale)


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Exactly - we've all seen The Sweeney. It's a front for a racket innit.


 innit?


----------



## magneze (Mar 27, 2015)

marty21 said:


> awful shit going on , admittedly I benefit from rising house prices but I could end up living somewhere with no services that I need.


Surely the only people who benefit from rising house prices are estate agents?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 27, 2015)

Sue said:


> I'd say a lot of it is fuelled by family money. I've come across two couples recently who live near me in Hackney and have recently bought flats. Both sets are in their twenties and there's no way they're earning enough to be able to afford £500k flats without a serious injection of cash from somewhere.


Yeah, I suppose what I really mean is that there's no sort of special new group here that hasn't been involved in any other sort of gentrification.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 27, 2015)

magneze said:


> Surely the only people who benefit from rising house prices are estate agents?


And downsizers.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 27, 2015)

And property speculators, and construction companies.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 27, 2015)

And the government, who get approving Express headlines.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

and people moving out of the borough, able to afford a house elsewhere on the amount a flat costs in hackney


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 27, 2015)

I wish someone would gentrify thornton heath (a bit)


----------



## ska invita (Mar 27, 2015)

kabbes said:


> And the government, who get approving Express headlines.


...and stamp duty - and 'solve' the housing crisis by making people live in smaller spaces ...and effectively inject wealth into a stalling economy via the pockets of property owners
thats the problem - its in governments interest, hence nothing being done about it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 27, 2015)

Batboy said:


> I am in the hub of this and we have had to relocate our main operation to Tottenham, soon it will be Tottenhams turn .
> 
> Our old premises in Hackney was at the centre of a fight against developers people (including a car mechanics) who had been there for decades were forced out, many having to close their businesses. When the developers (who were Orthodox Jews) won the day they sold the development to another consortium of Orthodox Jews for 10 million. Now these current developers want a bigger development, in the meantime they have decided to relet the crumbling decaying buildings (neglected by all owners over decades) with prices increased by up to 1000%
> 
> ...



To put your Orthodox Jew "problem" in perspective, this is a problem in *any* community where one group of people dominate or have dominated an aspect of business. All the stuff about clannishness and profiteering is exactly the same as I've heard about Pakistani Muslims in Tooting with regard to commercial property. It's a function of people having originally invested in the area that they lived in, and often a function of them having had the good sense to take a long-term modest return, rather than cashing in. Unfortunately the sort of boom in property prices Greater London is seeing, has chucked long-termism out of the window, and made most "small-time" commercial property owners believe that they'd be mad not to "take the money and run".


----------



## andysays (Mar 27, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I have to question the tone too, based on this line.  He was a breeze-in driving out traditional printers and finishers and glass makers as recently as the 1990s.  Why is his departure now a sign of anything other than the fact that businesses come and go?



There's no indication in the bit you've quoted that the garage business has driven the traditional printers and finishers and glass makers off the industrial estate, in fact from my experience working as a cabinet maker on various industrial estates, all those businesses can and do co-exist quite happily, or at least did before property and rental prices took a huge leap.

I also suggest that a significant part of the leap in Hackney Wick and the surrounding area is down to Olympic redevelopment rather than more general processes of gentrification.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 27, 2015)

andysays said:


> There's no indication in the bit you've quoted that the garage business has driven the traditional printers and finishers and glass makers off the industrial estate, in fact from my experience working as a cabinet maker on various industrial estates, all those businesses can and do co-exist quite happily, or at least did before property and rental prices took a huge leap.
> 
> I also suggest that a significant part of the leap in Hackney Wick and the surrounding area is down to Olympic redevelopment rather than more general processes of gentrification.


kind of - the artists moved in well before the olympics
its an industrial area really and it was a cheap spot for office space and art studios


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 27, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> Can't stand hipsters but the the blame here seems to lie fairly and squarely with Orthodox developers according to what Batboy reports.



Or perhaps it lies with "developers" _per se_.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 27, 2015)

Well, he certainly "drove out" (read: replaced) somebody, unless the site had always previously been vacant.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 27, 2015)

I hear the reform developers are also cunts tbf.


----------



## andysays (Mar 27, 2015)

ska invita said:


> kind of - the artists moved in well before the olympics



The first generation of artists moved in well before the Olympics (I can remember old warehouses being used as live/work spaces in HW when I was working there 10+ years ago) but at that stage it wasn't driving existing small businesses out to a significant extent.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 27, 2015)

magneze said:


> Surely the only people who benefit from rising house prices are estate agents?


Home owners do if you sell up in somewhere expensive and buy in a cheaper area.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 27, 2015)

andysays said:


> The first generation of artists moved in well before the Olympics (I can remember old warehouses being used as live/work spaces in HW when I was working there 10+ years ago) but at that stage it wasn't driving existing small businesses out to a significant extent.


no it wasnt - i worked there a day a week about...6 7 years ago now (as an accountant  i know nothing about accounts still!) and it was still desolate - there were a few artists smoking rollies but there were no shops / cafes / 'hipster' infastructure - slowly that has come - a couple of bar /clubs by the canal now, a record shop, cafe, bike shops... all things I like tbh, and on their own theres no good reason why that should drive up a rental price so high.... its just the general madness....

personally i find the olymipc redevelopment ugly and soul destorying - a fuck off shopping centre and some shit 'luxury' flats does not a redevelopment make. but there you go


----------



## andysays (Mar 27, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Well, he certainly "drove out" (read: replaced) somebody, unless the site had always previously been vacant.



It's part of the nature of small businesses in cheap industrial units that they come and go for various reasons unrelated to the sudden huge increase in rents which result in the gentrification of an area, so a vacancy could easily have arisen "naturally", just as you might decide to sell your house or end your rental to move elsewhere.

Can you really not see the difference between choosing to move and being effectively forced to move?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 27, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> Batboy, sorry to hear about your situation. I do think you should think about some of that phrasing. What you describe is simply how all developers behave. They are secretive so as to keep out the competition, do dodgy deals with the council and with their mates/family, don't give a fuck about anyone else. They behave, by and large, like scum. I just don't think it is helpful to identify their ethnicity as an issue.



Yep, and this issue emerges anywhere that has settled communities. It starts as inward investment, and sometimes *eventually* becomes property-holding among various community members. When my parents lived in Elephant and Castle back in the '60s, about half the properties in half a dozen roads that were demolished to make way for Heygate were owned by members of the same extended local family, who'd been in the area for a couple of hundred years, and "worked their way up" from a pub to "workers' lodgings" and then family housing.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 27, 2015)

the weirdest thing about hackney wick is all the walking tours  what fucked up kind of holidays do people take - go to the beach you nutters


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> Who owns these craft breweries, pop up businesses, surely you have to have money to launch them?



Money or (more usually) the social capital to borrow on favourable terms.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 27, 2015)

People seem to be suggesting that a 1000% hike in rents is part of the natural order of things, and people shouldn't moan about it.

I'd moan if it were me.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 27, 2015)

what do you think of New Stratford Olympic Garden Village stethoscope?


----------



## andysays (Mar 27, 2015)

Anyway, disappointed that no-one has yet pointed out that if all the garages are driven out, there'll be nowhere for the next generation of garage bands to come from



We're a garage band.
We come from garageland...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> but more bike workshops, and the cycle of life goes on
> 
> actually, gentrification is not a 'natural process' as some on here seem to think, in Berlin it is being robustly opposed.



I'm not aware of anyone besides neoliberals who consider gentrification to be a "natural process". The circulation of population caused by the ongoing renewal of some areas (and concomitant dilapidation elsewhere) isn't "natural" either, although it is historically-mappable.
In Berlin (and elsewhere) it can be more robustly opposed because tenants have far greater rights than here.


----------



## coltrane (Mar 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> There's actually no agreed definition of 'craft'. By anyone, and certainly not within CAMRA, where there are more types of disagreements about it than there are relevant  breweries.
> 
> So in short I agree with you SpookyFrank



There was a discussion about what exactly "craft beers" are in my local a little while back. 

The best explanation was "About £2.50 a pint extra". A concise explanation in a sea of blether.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 27, 2015)

ska invita said:


> what do you think of New Stratford Village stethoscope?



Last time I popped back that way it felt like a tale of two Stratfords - down to the dividing line of E15/E20! The area of Stratford City (E20) with its new retail/late night 'brands' mecca (Westfields), plush new apartments and quick access for those incomers to their jobs at Canary Wharf via Stratford International; in contrast to the old Stratford I know (E15) which is from the Stratford Centre, Maryland station and towards West Ham station with its mix of Victorian terraces and social housing, small shopkeepers and family-run businesses, high unemployment rates, etc. I find Stratford City, Westfield, etc. just all so bland and soulless, and it's creating a divide of haves and have nots.

And deeper into E20 is the East Village development that's rising from the Olympic Park. 2,500 new homes built there of which I think 1,300 are 'affordable' (with 600 of those being social rent - the others are 50-80% of the average private rent). Last time I looked, the private rented 1 bed flats there were about £350-400p/w!


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 27, 2015)

He's not actually been driven out by "hipsters", has he? He's a small capitalist who's been driven out by medium-sized capitalists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> I wish someone would gentrify thornton heath (a bit)


be careful what you wish for...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Last time I popped back that way it felt like a tale of two Stratfords - down to the dividing line of E15/E20! The area of Stratford City (E20) with its new retail/late night 'brands' mecca (Westfields), plush new apartments and quick access for those incomers to their jobs at Canary Wharf via Stratford International; in contrast to the old Stratford I know (E15) which is from the Stratford Centre, Maryland station and towards West Ham with its mix of Victorian terraces and social housing, little family owned stores and takeaways, high unemployment rates, etc.
> 
> And deeper into E20 is the East Village development that's rising from the Olympic Park. 2,500 new homes built there of which I think 1,300 are 'affordable' (with 600 of those being social rent - the others are 50-80% of the average private rent). Last time I looked, the private rented 1 bed flats there were about £350-400p/w!


even if they were affordable affordable, would they be desirable?


----------



## pinkmonkey (Mar 27, 2015)

andysays said:


> The first generation of artists moved in well before the Olympics (I can remember old warehouses being used as live/work spaces in HW when I was working there 10+ years ago) but at that stage it wasn't driving existing small businesses out to a significant extent.


My friend reckons she was there first - about 18 years ago, she recalls having to take a baseball bat with her when she walked around Wick at night. Gentrification proper came about 2011.
I'm seeing all the same signs in Tottenham, we are about five years behind Hackney Wick. We've got the artists and back end of last year the first hipster coffee shop, first craft brewery opened. And there is a Mexican and a Spanish place on the high road. It won't be long. Tottenham is going to be gentrified, just like Brixton, our bad for being on the Victoria line (20mins to Oxford circus) and in easy reach of the city (10 min train ride). Just too damn convenient!


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2015)

andysays said:


> Anyway, disappointed that no-one has yet pointed out that if all the garages are driven out, there'll be nowhere for the next generation of garage bands to come from
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The son of a diplomat

though still a great band...


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not aware of anyone besides neoliberals who consider gentrification to be a "natural process". The circulation of population caused by the ongoing renewal of some areas (and concomitant dilapidation elsewhere) isn't "natural" either, although it is historically-mappable.
> In Berlin (and elsewhere) it can be more robustly opposed because tenants have far greater rights than here.



Is there 'any' dilapidation in the sense of areas going downhill in London?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> Is there 'any' dilapidation in the sense of areas going downhill in London?



Lots of inner and outer suburban London areas are running down. A good example might be Streatham, where despite high property prices, the actual infrastructure and services are poorer now than 20 years ago. Eventually the infrastructure problems will bleed into property prices and put a small brake on them in *some* areas. It's hard for an estate agent to sell somewhere as having "good transport links to the rest of London" when it can take longer to traverse Streatham High Rd in a vehicle, than on foot, and Streatham isn't alone in this regard.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 27, 2015)

i'd agree, many, many areas of south london are looking run down. the suburbs now look just as urban as the inner city did 10-15 years ago. there's a lot of HMO where i live (thornton heath). over flowing rubbish, landlords creating slums, etc, which is weird considering it was seen as a suburb that terry and june would have once settled for. there's many roads around me where the houses have literally not seen a touch of paint on their external walls in about thirty years. fences dilapidated. still cost you 300k and up for one of them tho


----------



## marty21 (Mar 27, 2015)

pinkmonkey said:


> My friend reckons she was there first - about 18 years ago, she recalls having to take a baseball bat with her when she walked around Wick at night. Gentrification proper came about 2011.
> I'm seeing all the same signs in Tottenham, we are about five years behind Hackney Wick. We've got the artists and back end of last year the first hipster coffee shop, first craft brewery opened. And there is a Mexican and a Spanish place on the high road. It won't be long. Tottenham is going to be gentrified, just like Brixton, our bad for being on the Victoria line (20mins to Oxford circus) and in easy reach of the city (10 min train ride). Just too damn convenient!


The new Tottenham ground will see to that .


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 27, 2015)

broken window theory is always interesting i think in regards house prices, areas going up or down, etc. replace broken windows with fucking fly tipping and you'll see the main problem in croydon today. it's surprising when a corner HASN'T got stuff dumped on it by some cunt of a landlord/builder/etc


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 27, 2015)

at the end of the day, gentrification i think is overrated. a few coffee shops, a few bars, a few posh restaurants. the pay off being disgusting house prices/rents. as long as an area has the basics and is just generally pleasant, there's really no need for the beards. 

people knock croydon but at least it's full of working class people who are, believe it or not, home owners, raising families, etc. in places further north it seems the only two options are council flat or flat for 450k and onward.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 27, 2015)

An economic collapse whilst blaming 'the Jews'?

Careful what you're wishing for.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 27, 2015)

Hi guys. Awesome tool box. I've come to shut you down.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

pinkmonkey said:


> My friend reckons she was there first - about 18 years ago, she recalls having to take a baseball bat with her when she walked around Wick at night. Gentrification proper came about 2011.
> I'm seeing all the same signs in Tottenham, we are about five years behind Hackney Wick. We've got the artists and back end of last year the first hipster coffee shop, first craft brewery opened. And there is a Mexican and a Spanish place on the high road. It won't be long. Tottenham is going to be gentrified, just like Brixton, our bad for being on the Victoria line (20mins to Oxford circus) and in easy reach of the city (10 min train ride). Just too damn convenient!


you do know there is a big latin american community round seven sisters? no great surprise about a mexican place...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

anyway tottenham's been a lost cause since the unwaged centre and the plough closed.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 27, 2015)

Batboy said:


> I am all for improving areas but there has to be a balance in all aspects including business and workspace,


There, in a nutshell, the case for interventionist, old-style urban planning - and against leaving everything up to unfettered 'free' market capitalism.
it's come to something when you're nostalgic for the 'radicalism' of Jim Callaghan, Jim Braddock and Herbert Morrison!
e2a; the point being we seem miles from even that pitifully modest sign of progress that would take us all the way forward to the 1950s


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 27, 2015)

Batboy said:


> And incidently I mention the orthodox Jewish aspect for a reason as they are at the core of many of these developments having sat on many decaying commercial properties in Hackney for decades, they operate very secretly they appear not sell to 'outsiders'


You REALLy shot your foot off there.
It's got F- all to do with ethnicity - or faith. It's got everything to do with capital.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 27, 2015)

apologies - I see everyone else had quite rightly taken batboy to task there on that particular point


----------



## andysays (Mar 27, 2015)

pinkmonkey said:


> My friend reckons she was there first - about 18 years ago, she recalls having to take a baseball bat with her when she walked around Wick at night. Gentrification proper came about 2011.
> I'm seeing all the same signs in Tottenham, we are about five years behind Hackney Wick. We've got the artists and back end of last year the first hipster coffee shop, first craft brewery opened. And there is a Mexican and a Spanish place on the high road. It won't be long. Tottenham is going to be gentrified, just like Brixton, our bad for being on the Victoria line (20mins to Oxford circus) and in easy reach of the city (10 min train ride). Just too damn convenient!




Yeah, I've lived in Tottenham for about 17 years, and I've recently seen some of the signs here as well...


----------



## davesgcr (Mar 27, 2015)

Good thread ! 

To quote the reasons behind the NR "ban" on arches (railway) and cars - apart from slightly dodgy thingsgoing on - a major concern was fires and the risk of oxygen etc cylinders going up and the railway above being shut down for many hours as a result of (rightly) Fire Brigade exclusion zones ....(same policy LT did for arches under the Hammersmith and City line) - bit easier now to get less risky tenants. 

Other thing about decline of the "cheaper" suburbs - those that had houses built for around £500 in the 20's and 30's is correct - think of the bits of Neasden facing the A406 - once OK - now much "down" as housing (in some cases - not all) - gets neglected , divided and "sweated" - the challenge is getting some of these areas pulled up - if not gentrified. A term which dates back to at least the 1960's when the middle classes "discovered" a non steam train blighted Camden and Islington .....


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 27, 2015)

what do you mean by sweated?


----------



## davesgcr (Mar 27, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> what do you mean by sweated?


Houses that may be rented out / subdivided (maybe without planning permission) and neglected by the owner at the expense of the renter. Bit like much student accommodation was / is ....


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 27, 2015)

davesgcr said:


> Houses that may be rented out / subdivided (maybe without planning permission) and neglected by the owner at the expense of the renter. Bit like much student accommodation was / is ....


i thought so. we've got loads of it in croydon. the classic regarding a property is too many people-not enough bins, thus resulting in street corners piled high with dumped black bags.they are puttin in a landlord licensing scheme now though, thank god, might improve things for everyone.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 27, 2015)

to sum up - it's getting cramped and dirty down here in the suburbs..


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

Streathamite said:


> apologies - I see everyone else had quite rightly taken batboy to task there on that particular point


room for one more kick


----------



## maomao (Mar 27, 2015)

It's the property developers and greedy landlords that have forced him out not silly twats with beards though having been priced out of Hackney myself it's easy to hate and blame the hipsters. I'm now in one of the least gentrified areas of London and like it though sometimes when I'm going round Romford trying to find yellow soya beans or decent coffee I'm not sure I'm not at the spearhead of gentrification myself.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 27, 2015)

andysays said:


> Unlike all other commercial developers who operate completely openly and wouldn't dream of operating any sort of network which excludes percieved outsiders, I suppose...
> 
> It's a shame that this thread had now been effectively derailed by your pointless and idiotic comment.



Yeah sure... you don't have a clue what is going on in Hackney. This insular practice is endemic amongst the Orthodox Jewish Community in Hackney and parts of Tottenham (it will be next).  These exclusive actions are one of the major factors of driving out small businesses and working class people in the area. The huge syndicates are profiteering without any consideration to reinvestment to the area or other communities, you may not like what I am saying, but it is what is happening, you don't see it because it is incredibly secret. 

Ok so many other developers are arseholes too, but they are largely not built on the back of religious tribalism, Other developers will vary and you can do business with many of them, they do not bar you on the grounds of your colour, race or religion , which is essentially what the orthodox Jewish community does. I don't even know who my landlord is, It has taken us six months to get to the bottom of who to talk to. We have one guy who is entrenched in his studio and suffering from cancer who has been despicably treated by the landlords. I have had many leases on commercial properties and have always known the score with the freeholders and who they are.

They ironically knocked down a beautiful art deco synagogue conveniently a day before it was due to be listed in order to preserve it for cashing in on future development. It has stood in a pile of debris for the last 9 years. Their caveat was that all the congregation would benefit from the proceeds of development. There is no sentiment or nod to heritage here, it is cold, heartless and exclusive.

They don't give a fuck about anyone outside of their community.  This thread is not derailed it is about Hackney and this is part of what's going on. There is huge ownership of land and property in this area by the Orthodox Jewry. I intend this to be controversial because it is incredibly frustrating to see what is unfolding. It is the issue of exclusivity and mystery that I have issue with and this is particularly unique to this community, they are prejudicial in there actions, I know I am stirring it up by saying it. It's a paradox that may well set you and others off, but hey i've said it and I don't give a shit.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 27, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> do you have a jewish landlord in tottenham?



Not yet.


----------



## maomao (Mar 27, 2015)

Batboy said:


> They ironically knocked down a beautiful art deco synagogue conveniently a day before it was due to be listed in order to preserve it for cashing in on future development. It has stood in a pile of debris for the last 9 years.



47 Lea Bridge Rd? It's been flats for at least 2 years now. I lived the other side of the park from there 2009-2014.

ETA: I think I'm wrong, there is still an unused space 4 doors down from the flats I'm thinking of.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Wait, we have the diamond situation to come yet - _my partner is jewish, i know what i'm on about._



no only you have all the pearls of wisdom... but for the record my kids are Jewish, their mother is Jewish and I have Jewish blood in me albeit several generations back. In the Orthodox Jewish eyes none of us would be considered Kosher. It's irrelevant but you can have your moment of surliness as you often do.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 27, 2015)

maomao said:


> 47 Lea Bridge Rd? It's been flats for at least 2 years now. I lived the other side of the park from there 2009-2014.
> 
> ETA: I think I'm wrong, there is still an unused space 4 doors down from the flats I'm thinking of.




Thats the one.


----------



## maomao (Mar 27, 2015)

My landlord definitely wasn't jewish and he wanted to stick my rent up by over 50% when he found out about the Hackney madness. I don't doubt there are some peculiarities about doing business with the orthodox jews in that area, they are a very closed community and I've heard a lot of stories over the years. But they haven't engineered the Hackney madness, they're just taking advantage of it the same way as every other landlord prick in the area.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 27, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> And whose fault is it?



Them pesky middle-aged white men pulling strings behind the scenes again.


----------



## rich! (Mar 27, 2015)

davesgcr said:


> Good thread !
> 
> To quote the reasons behind the NR "ban" on arches (railway) and cars - apart from slightly dodgy thingsgoing on - a major concern was fires and the risk of oxygen etc cylinders going up and the railway above being shut down for many hours as a result of (rightly) Fire Brigade exclusion zones ....(same policy LT did for arches under the Hammersmith and City line) - bit easier now to get less risky tenants.



Qinetiq have a nice little earner providing a 24/7 blue light EOD robot service to the London Fire Brigade, paid for by Network Rail, to tackle fires in railway arches. Apparently, it started when LFB said "we're never sending another fireman into somewhere which might have acetylene cylinders, we're sick of funerals", and Network Rail realised how much they would have to pay if, say, the line out of St Pancras was shut on a Friday afternoon while a fire in a railway arch was controlled with hoses from a long distance...

I can entirely see them moving to "ban anyone storing explosive gas under the railway" and then narrowing it to "no welding - so no garages".


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 27, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Yeah sure... you don't have a clue what is going on in Hackney. This insular practice is endemic amongst the Orthodox Jewish Community in Hackney and parts of Tottenham (it will be next).  These exclusive actions are one of the major factors of driving out small businesses and working class people in the area. The huge syndicates are profiteering without any consideration to reinvestment to the area or other communities, you may not like what I am saying, but it is what is happening, you don't see it because it is incredibly secret.
> 
> Ok so many other developers are arseholes too, but they are largely not built on the back of religious tribalism, Other developers will vary and you can do business with many of them, they do not bar you on the grounds of your colour, race or religion , which is essentially what the orthodox Jewish community does. I don't even know who my landlord is, It has taken us six months to get to the bottom of who to talk to. We have one guy who is entrenched in his studio and suffering from cancer who has been despicably treated by the landlords. I have had many leases on commercial properties and have always known the score with the freeholders and who they are.
> 
> ...




This is literally all property developers.

And this post and your last one are both incredibly anti-semitic and to your massive discredit.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 27, 2015)

Batboy said:


> I almost get slated on these forums for not being a stereotypically left wing urbanite,



Famous last words.



> Ironically small businesses and working class people should really pull together instead of dividing along political lines.



Lol.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 27, 2015)

Small businesses can fuck off. Unless they support working class actions (I'm sure some do) and/ or stuff in the community, they can't suddenly come crying for working class support when it suddenly dawns on them that the shit can affect them too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

batboy > bannedboy by noon tomorrow i reckon


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 27, 2015)

I don't think he'll get banned. Unless he really is fash dropping their mask in which case I'm still fooled he isn't.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 27, 2015)

I really don't get why anyone would go for the whole "it must be the jews!" conspiracy theory when the financial motivations for _all landlords and developers_ to fuck over all and sundry are so very obvious. It is properly obtuse.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Mar 27, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Small businesses can fuck off. Unless they support working class actions (I'm sure some do) and/ or stuff in the community, they can't suddenly come crying for working class support when it suddenly dawns on them that the shit can affect them too.



Even the support of the working class who work at those small businesses?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 27, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Small businesses can fuck off.


yeah... that'll help everyone.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 27, 2015)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Even the support of the working class who work at those small businesses?



Well that's up to them. I imagine me and you may diverge on this question, however.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 27, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> yeah... that'll help everyone.



Not sure if you're being sarcastic there or not but I don't think small businesses are some force of nature.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 27, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Not sure if you're being sarcastic there or not but I don't think small businesses are some force of nature.


No, no sarcasm. Just wondering what your UK (or particularly in this case London) would look like after  killing off the  "nation of shopkeepers".
What should it become ??? Seriously, I'm interested. 
A nation of property developers???


----------



## xenon (Mar 28, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Yeah sure... you don't have a clue what is going on in Hackney. This insular practice is endemic amongst the Orthodox Jewish Community in Hackney and parts of Tottenham (it will be next).  These exclusive actions are one of the major factors of driving out small businesses and working class people in the area. The huge syndicates are profiteering without any consideration to reinvestment to the area or other communities, you may not like what I am saying, but it is what is happening, you don't see it because it is incredibly secret.
> 
> Ok so many other developers are arseholes too, but they are largely not built on the back of religious tribalism, Other developers will vary and you can do business with many of them, they do not bar you on the grounds of your colour, race or religion , which is essentially what the orthodox Jewish community does. I don't even know who my landlord is, It has taken us six months to get to the bottom of who to talk to. We have one guy who is entrenched in his studio and suffering from cancer who has been despicably treated by the landlords. I have had many leases on commercial properties and have always known the score with the freeholders and who they are.
> 
> ...


Yeah but as violent panda explained. It's not the Jewishness that is pertinent. For historical reasons, you will find certain ethnic groups involved in certain types of business. The Scots and the railways. Subcontinental Asians involved in retail. there are historic reasons for all of these things. Don't go down the wrong path of mistaking external manifestation of symptoms for causes.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> No, no sarcasm. Just wondering what your UK would look like after  killing off the  "nation of shopkeepers", What should the UK become ???
> Seriously, I'm interested. Should it be the nation of property developers???



Small businesses are often far more exploitative of their workforce than larger ones (finer margins, various labour costs and worker welfare costs they struggle to deal with).


----------



## xenon (Mar 28, 2015)

That includes the beardyhipsters by the way. Fun as it is to take the piss. A lot of them actually don't have that much money. They are not the force behind. What's happening to our communities.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Small businesses are often far more exploitative of their workforce than larger ones (finer margins, various labour costs and worker welfare costs they struggle to deal with).


Larger ones?????
Global conglomerates employing third world children for a $/day, yet pay someone working in their EC1 high rise >150K/year with full private health insurance and an oyster card


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Larger ones?????
> Global conglomerates employing third world children for a $/day, yet pay someone working in their EC1 high rise >150K/year with full private health insurance and an oyster card


I said often not always. And also, small businesses often depend on similarly exploitative supply chains (global conglomerates very rarely employ their sweatshop workers directly).


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I said often not always. And also, small businesses often depend on similarly exploitative supply chains (global conglomerates very rarely employ their sweatshop workers directly).


for a thread (that's ended up) ridiculing someone who's made a generalisation about a specific religious group, you've exceeded by doing the same thing about a specific group of economic enterprises.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Small businesses are often far more exploitative of their workforce than larger ones (finer margins, various labour costs and worker welfare costs they struggle to deal with).


Anyway, while you're here, what's your suggestion for the post small enterprise world? 
Where should the millions of small business employers and employees work instead?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> for a thread (that's ended up) ridiculing someone who's made a generalisation about a specific religious group, you've exceeded by doing the same thing about a specific group of economic enterprises.



Oh brother... if you're unable to tell the difference between attributing moral corruption to groups based on their ethnicity/religion and attributing economic tendencies to particular forms of economic activity I'm not sure how I can help you, tbh.

(I mean, if you're a small business owner don't take it personally, it's just capitalism)


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Anyway, while you're here, what's your suggestion for the post small enterprise world?
> Where should the millions of small business employers and employees work instead?



I don't believe I ever mentioned anything about a post small enterprise world. (Though, if I had my way, we'd abolish capitalism and capitalists in both their small and big variety)


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Oh brother... if you're unable to tell the difference between attributing moral corruption to groups based on their ethnicity/religion and attributing economic tendencies to particular forms of economic activity I'm not sure how I can help you, tbh.
> 
> (I mean, if you're a small business owner don't take it personally, it's just capitalism)


can you tell the difference between attributing economic tendencies to groups based on their ethnicity/religion and attributing moral corruption to particular forms of economic activity???


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I don't believe I ever mentioned anything about a post small enterprise world. (Though, if I had my way, we'd abolish capitalism and capitalists in both their small and big variety)


so how would it look? what do you do with the millions of people?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> can you tell the difference between attributing moral corruption to groups based on their ethnicity/religion and attributing economic tendencies to particular forms of economic activity???


Like, seriously?
You don't see the difference between these two statements?
(a) _jews are money grabbers_
(b) _banks make a profit by charging interest on money that they lend people_


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> so how would it look? what do you do with the millions of people?


The rest of the millions of people and I would decide together, I expect.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Like, seriously?
> You don't see the difference between these two statements?
> (a) _jews are money grabbers_
> (b) _banks make a profit by charging interest on money that they lend people_


yes, but they have nothing to do with what we're talking about


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> The rest of the millions of people and I would decide together, I expect.


After you've closed all their businesses, I'm sure they'll be thrilled to sit with you an decide what happens


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> yes, but they have nothing to do with what we're talking about


You seemed unclear about the concept, so I came up with clearer examples to illustrate the distinction. The examples we were actually talking about serve just as well though.

(a) North London Orthodox Jews are running a secret cabal which is corrupting the property market in North London. 
(b) Small businesses have a tendency, for a variety of reasons (low profit margins, low capital ratios, low added value, less state and union regulation), to be more exploitative of their staff than larger employers. 

The top one is nothing more than an irrational bigoted prejudice. The second one is common in many types of small business because of the kind of economic activity they're engaged in and the economic motivation and pressures at play.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> After you've closed all their businesses, I'm sure they'll be thrilled to sit with you an decide what happens


I've not actually proposed that _I _was going to close anything. All I outlined was the kind of society that _I _wanted to live in.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> You seemed unclear about the concept, so I came up with clearer examples to illustrate the distinction. The examples we were actually talking about serve just as well though.
> 
> (a) North London Orthodox Jews are running a secret cabal which is corrupting the property market in North London.
> (b) Small businesses have a tendency, for a variety of reasons (low profit margins, low capital ratios, low added value, less state and union regulation), to be more exploitative of their staff than larger employers.
> ...



Point (a) is irrelevant to what I've discussed.

Point (b); facts or stfu.

eta:  you seem to be trying to engage with an audience to transmit your personal thoughts on an accumulation of posts that have nothing to do with mine. My ititial post was only a response to C66's statement: Fuck small businesses)


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Point (a) is irrelevant to what I've discussed.
> 
> Point (b); facts or stfu.


I'll just take you a little bit further back in the conversation, shall I?



pocketscience said:


> for a thread (that's ended up) ridiculing someone who's made a generalisation about a specific religious group, you've exceeded by doing the same thing about a specific group of economic enterprises.



You were comparing my post about small businesses to the point Batboy made about Orthodox Jews. So the fact that (a) and (b) are not the same type of statement is entirely the argument.

That they are different would remain true, incidentally, whether or not I was inclined to prove my statement (which is pretty uncontroversial really). But, since you insist:


This graph is from the Low Pay Commission Annual Report (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...The_National_Minimum_Wage_LPC_Report_2014.pdf). You can see that employees paid the national minimum wage are disproportionately concentrated in smaller enterprises (and, of course, in the private sector more generally). Low pay and small businesses go hand in hand.

If I were so inclined I could find other stats showing that small businesses were more likely to flout NMW laws amongst other things. Will that do?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> eta:  you seem to be trying to engage with an audience to transmit your personal thoughts on an accumulation of posts that have nothing to do with mine. My ititial post was only a response to C66's statement: Fuck small businesses)



You did specifically accuse _me_ of making a generalisation similar to Batboy's.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Will that do?


no. it's a pile of shit made probably by Accenture or McKinsey, contacted out of our tax money so that highly paid public sector cushion farting bureaucrats can feel better about themselves.
Are the McKinsey and Accenture employees included in the stats??? they're large and well paid. should we all work for them??
what happens when I have to run off to pick the baby up from the nursery without grief from a corperate, lacky asshole boss???


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> You did specifically accuse _me_ of making a generalisation similar to Batboy's.


I did, just to highlight the irony.. .but the two topics are separate.
The topic I engaged in with C66 (small businesses [in hackney] - i.e: on topic) has nowt to do with the other you keep mixing in (the jew thing.. off topic -derail).


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> no. it's a pile of shit worthy of Accenture or McKinsey
> Are the McKinsey and Accenture employees included in the stats??? they're large and well paid. should we all work for them??
> what happens when I have to run off to pick the baby up from the nursery without grief from a corperate, lacky asshole boss???



It's the Annual Report by the Low Pay Commission, an independent body whose 9 commissioners include 2 economics professors, two trade unionists, a representative of small business, a representative of the CBI and several charity people. It has no particularly obvious agenda to paint small business in a bad light nor are the statistics I've shared above particularly controversial. There's literally sod all reason to call the stats above into doubt. If you're too precious to admit you're wrong then that's your problem.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I did, just to highlight the irony.. .but the two topics are separate.
> The topic I engaged in with C66 (small businesses [in hackney] - i.e: on topic) has nowt to do with the other you keep mixing in (the jew thing.. off topic -derail).


Except, as I've explained, at length, it was a shit comparison.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> It's the Annual Report by the Low Pay Commission, an independent body whose 9 commissioners include 2 economics professors, two trade unionists, a representative of small business, a representative of the CBI and several charity people. It has no particularly obvious agenda to paint small business in a bad light nor are the statistics I've shared above particularly controversial. There's literally sod all reason to call the stats above into doubt. If you're too precious to admit you're wrong then that's your problem.


whoa there ... I just asked you to provide the facts that small businesses are more *exploitative *to employees than large... your graph proves shit.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> whoa there ... I just asked you to provide the facts that small businesses are more *exploitative *to employees than large... your graph proves shit.



Apparently you _are _too precious to admit you're wrong. All wage labour is exploitation, low paid work is more exploitative and employers paying at the NMW are paying less than a living wage.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Apparently you _are _too precious to admit you're wrong. All wage labour is exploitation, low paid work is more exploitative and employers paying at the NMW are paying less than a living wage.


and your alternative as per your earlier post is to destroy it all  and then get together and have think about it?

how would you fund the nhs? roads? schools? what goods would you import, export? what would you do with the car industry? How would you get hold of oil/energy? how would you keep the transport infrastructure going?

if there's one thing that is going to make people cling to capitalism and the market more than anything, it's alternatives that suggest absolutely *nothing.*


----------



## Batboy (Mar 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> & where it hasn't been built on property inflation it's been built on financial shenanigans in the city.


 Same thing, the financial shenanigans is intertwined with property inflation. This has been the biggest bubble in history.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 28, 2015)

maomao said:


> . I don't doubt there are some peculiarities about doing business with the orthodox jews in that area, they are a very closed community and I've heard a lot of stories over the years. But they haven't engineered the Hackney madness, they're just taking advantage of it the same way as every other landlord prick in the area.



That's partly true, and again I know I am stirring it up, its the scale of the taking advantage, 100 strong syndicates, don't get me wrong I can admire the ingenuity on one hand, but I don't like the exclusiveness and prejudicial fact that they exclude others, including paradoxically from their syndicates. Those that criticise me will be wallowing away on the Palenstine/Israel threads. We need to stop being scared of criticising specific communities if their large collective actions are causing problems and they have no interest in integrating on an equal basis, yes it is a generalisation and I would normally not sit with that, but the nature of what is happening needs to be said as controversial as that is.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> This is literally all property developers.
> 
> And this post and your last one are both incredibly anti-semitic and to your massive discredit.



Don't be ridiculous... Anti Semitic... I guess I'll be sending my kids and their mother to the gas chambers then.

You need to take a closer and a more contextualised look at my posts.

If I begin to criticise fundamental Islam including those that set stalls up in Dalston (a gay night Mecca*) promoting sharia law as a standard for all of us to live by, am I islamaphobic?


*deliberate oxymoron.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 28, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Small businesses can fuck off. Unless they support working class actions (I'm sure some do) and/ or stuff in the community, they can't suddenly come crying for working class support when it suddenly dawns on them that the shit can affect them too.



This is the typical old fashioned polarised attitude that just adds to the sludge and struggles we all face. It's on both sides of the fence I grant you. United we stand divided we fall etc...


----------



## Batboy (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> All wage labour is exploitation, .



And so how do you propose we construct our society? Picking berries, killing rabbits, pissing and shitting in fields and living in trees? What alternative is there to wage labour? Collectives co-operatives? I don't think so. 

The problem with capitalism is the excesses of greed and that is down to human nature, you have a long long way to go to change that.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 28, 2015)

xenon said:


> Yeah but as violent panda explained. It's not the Jewishness that is pertinent. For historical reasons, you will find certain ethnic groups involved in certain types of business. The Scots and the railways. Subcontinental Asians involved in retail. there are historic reasons for all of these things. Don't go down the wrong path of mistaking external manifestation of symptoms for causes.



But are they exclusive in the same way? And you mention historical, this is happening now. I do business with the Bengali community that are dominating a certain sector in catering. They have the option to go with a competitor of mine that is also Bengali, they don't, it's mixed between several of us. That's called integration and being inclusive, this is the bigger point I am trying to make that seems to be going over many people's heads.

The way I see it most of the problems of separate communities and religious groups is the lack of integration, the birds of a feather mentality. I have highlighted it here on a thread about what is going on in Hackney with specifically commercial property that is in this area very much dominated by the orthodox Jewish community who have taken full advantage of 'hipster Hackney' . It is their exclusiveness and prejudicial behaviour I am highlighting (as unpalatable as that is to some). If I had experience of the Scots and the railways and they were exclusive in the same way, I would be equally vocal about it.


----------



## Sparkle Motion (Mar 28, 2015)

1380s: Peasants.
1680s: Heugenots.
1880s: Jews.
1960s: West Indians.
1970s: Asians.
1980s: Yuppies.
2000s: Eastern Europeans.
2010s: Hipsters.

Which of these groups should we hate? Which should have been allowed to settle in London? And who gets to decide?


----------



## Batboy (Mar 28, 2015)

Th.


Sparkle Motion said:


> 1380s: Peasants.
> 1680s: Heugenots.
> 1880s: Jews.
> 1960s: West Indians.
> ...



Dunno what happened to the yuppies? Where the fuck did they go?


----------



## Batboy (Mar 28, 2015)

And you missed out the Romans!


----------



## toblerone3 (Mar 28, 2015)

Batboy said:


> That's partly true, and again I know I am stirring it up, its the scale of the taking advantage, 100 strong syndicates, don't get me wrong I can admire the ingenuity on one hand, but I don't like the exclusiveness and prejudicial fact that they exclude others, including paradoxically from their syndicates. Those that criticise me will be wallowing away on the Palenstine/Israel threads. We need to stop being scared of criticising specific communities if their large collective actions are causing problems and they have no interest in integrating on an equal basis, yes it is a generalisation and I would normally not sit with that, but the nature of what is happening needs to be said as controversial as that is.



I think earlier in the thread you mentioned that you had been involved in an offer to buy out some of the Orthodox Jewish syndicates, but they had turned down the offer because they refused to deal with non-Orthodox Jewish people.  Surely there has got to be limit to this. If they were offered enough money they would sell. Property speculation is a murky business and I don't pretend to understand it, but perhaps one of the reasons for syndicates is to buy up different pieces of adjacent land to piece together a bigger piece of land and get planning permission for a bigger deal.  So the value of the bigger piece of land might be bigger than the sum of its parts.  Not saying that that there not murky borderline illegal things going on in land syndicates organised around ethnic religious ties, but there is still, surely, an underlying economic rationale for property transactions.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Mar 28, 2015)

Batboy said:


> And so how do you propose we construct our society? Picking berries, killing rabbits, pissing and shitting in fields and living in trees? What alternative is there to wage labour? Collectives co-operatives? I don't think so.
> 
> The problem with capitalism is the excesses of greed and that is down to human nature, you have a long long way to go to change that.



For someone awfully concerned with the plight of the working and exploited classes you don't half chat the mystical talk.

Also human nature, it's not fucking 1950 and totalitarian theory isn't in vogue. Sort it out. If you're going to use arbitrary, ambiguous and ill-defined concepts like human nature then at least present some sort of scientific methodology or data to back up your claims.

What you fail to realise is that the w/c doesn't want to join you in your mystical game unless pushed to do so, which is becoming increasingly difficult in 2015 with capitalism's  permanent decline. So you can moan about disunity but if you're not looking to uncover the essence of said disunity then expect people to ridicule you.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 28, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Th.
> 
> 
> Dunno what happened to the yuppies? Where the fuck did they go?


guildford.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 28, 2015)

dialectician said:


> For someone awfully concerned with the plight of the working and exploited classes you don't half chat the mystical talk.
> 
> Also human nature, it's not fucking 1950 and totalitarian theory isn't in vogue. Sort it out. If you're going to use arbitrary, ambiguous and ill-defined concepts like human nature then at least present some sort of scientific methodology or data to back up your claims.
> 
> What you fail to realise is that the w/c doesn't want to join you in your mystical game unless pushed to do so, which is becoming increasingly difficult in 2015 with capitalism's  permanent decline. So you can moan about disunity but if you're not looking to uncover the essence of said disunity then expect people to ridicule you.


and the answer to his question as the alternative to wage labour is? what alternative are you offering the working classes?


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Mar 28, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> and the answer to his question as the alternative to wage labour is? what alternative are you offering the working classes?



I'm not offering any alternative. I'm saying the concept of wage labour (and its accompanying defence, human nature) is mystical, not rational. Let's work that out before trying to propose alternatives.

And anyway, why would I have to offer it? If it's in the interest of the class to construct that alternative they will attempt to. What on earth does this have to do with me?

See, I have absolutely no idea what he meant by human nature because it's metaphysical/theological muddle. And I would hope that I'm a rational being.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 28, 2015)

As an aside I have  a non-orthodox, non-Jewish pal who is making a mint working with  North London Orthodox Jewish property developers in their various schemes. Property developers are property developers, they are generally ruthless whether the Duke of Westminster or a man in a beard with a hat. Bringing up all this Shylock shit is pretty disgusting IMHO.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 28, 2015)

I live in Stamford Hill. There are certainly issues here with orthodox Jewish property developers flouting planning regs. (My understanding is that this is down to a religious imperative to have big families and to live in a small defined geographical area as well as making a profit). 

They do piss a lot of people off. 

But the general gentrification of the area does not seem to be particularly  down to landlords and developers from that community: Woodberry Down estate (Russian millionaires replacing council tenants). 

Sainsburys in Wilmer Place - ripping out small businesses and trying to carve up Abney cemetery. 

The wanky boutiques on Stoke Newington Church street. 

I don't know about the landlords of the various small businesses for hipsters in Clapton and Dalston either but I doubt they are all Orthodox Jews. And if they are that would contradict Batboy's claim that they don't give a shit about small businesses or Gentiles.


----------



## tim (Mar 28, 2015)

treelover said:


> but more bike workshops, and the cycle of life goes on
> 
> actually, gentrification is not a 'natural process' as some on here seem to think, in Berlin it is being robustly opposed.



The fact thst it has to be overtly opposed suggests thst it is a fairly natural process within a capitalist economic system. I work in Fitzrovia where  opposition to the policy of making. a moderately posh area more exclusive is being led by radical firebrand Gryff Rhys Jones. I doubt he'll have much success, as he's up against the royal and aristocratic landlords who own all the freeholds. I would also assume that Gryff, when he moved in, drove out somebody in a less well paid job.


----------



## ChrisD (Mar 28, 2015)

In theory a brake on this process would be an effective land use planning system.... However this government is doing its best to deregulate that.  The permitted development rules will change from April 15th to allow small warehouse units (B8 use class) to change to housing without requiring specific planning permission or using space standards required by local authorities.  Blame Eric Pickles


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2015)

if Batboy was right then his former landlord would have charged a higher rate for many years


----------



## cantsin (Mar 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> Anyway, disappointed that no-one has yet pointed out that if all the garages are driven out, there'll be nowhere for the next generation of garage bands to come from
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Being needlessly pedantic, obvs, but i think we're talking Wrong sort of ' garage' here - garage bands ' refers to the wave of post Beatles bands that practised in family domestic garages all over suburban US from mid - late 60s - ( as famously compiled on the Nuggets comps ) - 

The Paradise Garage ( NY) was formerly a mechanics garage though, so you could have had a piccy of anyone from Larry Levan to the Artful bloody Dodger, and that wld have made sense In strictly 'Garage' terms.


----------



## tim (Mar 28, 2015)

Batboy said:


> This is the typical old fashioned polarised attitude that just adds to the sludge and struggles we all face. It's on both sides of the fence I grant you. United we stand divided we fall etc...



Yes, to be honest united we sshould stand against our bosses. However, pleasant or decent they may be on am individual basis. Regardless of the size of their enterprise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2015)

Sparkle Motion said:


> 1380s: Peasants.
> 1680s: Heugenots.
> 1880s: Jews.
> 1960s: West Indians.
> ...


no mention of the irish.


----------



## Sparkle Motion (Mar 28, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Th.
> 
> 
> Dunno what happened to the yuppies? Where the fuck did they go?


Probably sold their flats to hipsters (whatever they are) and took that well worn road to Essex.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2015)

Sparkle Motion said:


> Probably sold their flats to hipsters (whatever they are) and took that well worn road to Essex.


essex road you mean


----------



## Sparkle Motion (Mar 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> no mention of the irish.


Or the English, apart from the peasants.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 28, 2015)

Sparkle Motion said:


> 1380s: Peasants.
> 1680s: Heugenots.
> 1880s: Jews.
> 1960s: West Indians.
> ...



N00bies.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> no. it's a pile of shit made probably by Accenture or McKinsey, contacted out of our tax money so that highly paid public sector cushion farting bureaucrats can feel better about themselves.
> Are the McKinsey and Accenture employees included in the stats??? they're large and well paid. should we all work for them??
> what happens when I have to run off to pick the baby up from the nursery without grief from a corperate, lacky asshole boss???



Ha ha ha, wtf?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2015)

Sparkle Motion said:


> 1380s: Peasants.
> 1680s: Heugenots.
> 1880s: Jews.
> 1960s: West Indians.
> ...



You seem to a little confused on the differences between ethnic groups and groups defined by lifestyle choices.


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2015)

cantsin said:


> Being needlessly pedantic, obvs, but i think we're talking Wrong sort of ' garage' here - garage bands ' refers to the wave of post Beatles bands that practised in family domestic garages all over suburban US from mid - late 60s - ( as famously compiled on the Nuggets comps ) -
> 
> The Paradise Garage ( NY) was formerly a mechanics garage though, so you could have had a piccy of anyone from Larry Levan to the Artful bloody Dodger, and that wld have made sense In strictly 'Garage' terms.



This is all true, but the Clash famously used to rehearse in a space in Camden owned by British Rail, next door to a car spraying business who legend has it helped them create their early paint-splattered look.

And they were referred to as a garage band in an early (uncomplimentary) review by Charles Shaar Murray, but I digress...


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 28, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> You seem to a little confused on the differences between ethnic groups and groups defined by lifestyle choices.



Hating hipsters is terrible racism.


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Yeah sure... you don't have a clue what is going on in Hackney...



Leaving aside that fact that I have in fact lived in this part of London for most of the past 30 years, what makes you think you are the only one to have this special insight into the economy of this area, the only one of all of us here with local knowledge who can see behind the veil of secrecy to the truth behind it?

No one is denying that some of the property owners in this area are Orthodox Jews, what we are saying is that their business practices are not significantly different from other groups of property owners and really very little to do with their Orthodox Jewishness.

If small businesses around Hackney Wick are now finding that rents are rising to levels which they can't afford, it's not because of "the Joos", unless you're arguing that the decision to hold the Olympics in East London and the related regeneration/gentrification which is the cause of the particular huge rise in rents etc in this area is some international Jewish conspiracy. That would be a bit much even for you...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 28, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> broken window theory is always interesting i think in regards house prices, areas going up or down, etc. replace broken windows with fucking fly tipping and you'll see the main problem in croydon today. it's surprising when a corner HASN'T got stuff dumped on it by some cunt of a landlord/builder/etc



The idea behind how "Broken Windows" theory is supposed to work, isn't just about replacing broken windows, it's about sorting out fly-tipping etc as well as about moving "undesirable elements" out of the area - in other words, it's right-wing Utopian shite that doesn't actually work in the real world unless local authorities and police invest time, effort and money.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 28, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Same thing, the financial shenanigans is intertwined with property inflation. This has been the biggest bubble in history.



Nope. Still not as big as The South Sea Bubble, Tulipmania or Railways-mania in comparative terms.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The idea behind how "Broken Windows" theory is supposed to work, isn't just about replacing broken windows, it's about sorting out fly-tipping etc as well as about moving "undesirable elements" out of the area - in other words, it's right-wing Utopian shite that doesn't actually work in the real world unless local authorities and police invest time, effort and money.



It's also something that community groups and residents associations can use to put pressure on local councils, police and housing associations though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 28, 2015)

toblerone3 said:


> I think earlier in the thread you mentioned that you had been involved in an offer to buy out some of the Orthodox Jewish syndicates, but they had turned down the offer because they refused to deal with non-Orthodox Jewish people.  Surely there has got to be limit to this. If they were offered enough money they would sell. Property speculation is a murky business and I don't pretend to understand it, but perhaps one of the reasons for syndicates is to buy up different pieces of adjacent land to piece together a bigger piece of land and get planning permission for a bigger deal.  So the value of the bigger piece of land might be bigger than the sum of its parts.  Not saying that that there not murky borderline illegal things going on in land syndicates organised around ethnic religious ties, but there is still, surely, an underlying economic rationale for property transactions.



Always. Here (as in other places) it's the advantages for tax chicanery generated by selling/shifting property "within the family".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 28, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> It's also something that community groups and residents associations can use to put pressure on local councils, police and housing associations though.



Supposedly, but it only ever seems to function partially (in both senses of the word).


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Supposedly, but it only ever seems to function partially (in both senses of the word).



Oh I agree, but it can still be used as a stick to beat people with. And hopefully move vandalism on estates further up the agenda compared to other things.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 28, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> You seem to a little confused on the differences between ethnic groups and groups defined by lifestyle choices.



Init. Clearly 1980's yuppies were entirely deserving of any hatred they recieved.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Don't be ridiculous... Anti Semitic... I guess I'll be sending my kids and their mother to the gas chambers then.
> 
> You need to take a closer and a more contextualised look at my posts.
> 
> ...


I couldn't care less about your family relations. Your relationshiop to some jews doesn't give you carte blanche to repeat some of the vilest and oldest anti-semitic ideas.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 28, 2015)

editor said:


> Another tragic tale of the big sell out of London. This shit has to end soon.



This chap sounds like something of a wanker, tbh. He himself is a relative newcomer to the area having been there a little over 20 years and he pushed other businesses out.

And of course it won't "end soon".

Areas change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/d...448019/The-surprising-history-of-Hackney.html


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> and your alternative as per your earlier post is to destroy it all  and then get together and have think about it?
> 
> how would you fund the nhs? roads? schools? what goods would you import, export? what would you do with the car industry? How would you get hold of oil/energy? how would you keep the transport infrastructure going?
> 
> if there's one thing that is going to make people cling to capitalism and the market more than anything, it's alternatives that suggest absolutely *nothing.*



I've not actually proposed any alternative, have I? All I did was express a few utopian desires. We're allowed to do that, it's part of being human. 

Thankfully, neither I nor anyone else has the capacity to single-handedly strike down all existing social relations with a touch of a button. Personally, I imagine that sort of transformation involving a few people than me and that perhaps pre-empting in great detail the society we'd all want might be presumptuous (and that a small group of people like me dedicated themselves to doing so and were victorious was one contributing factor as to why Soviet Communism was so horrific).


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

Batboy said:


> And so how do you propose we construct our society? Picking berries, killing rabbits, pissing and shitting in fields and living in trees? What alternative is there to wage labour? Collectives co-operatives? I don't think so.



I was just planning on just getting all the racists and anti-semites to do all the work in a massive gulag actually.



> The problem with capitalism is the excesses of greed and that is down to human nature, you have a long long way to go to change that.


Ah, "human nature", the _other_ fall back position for the total idiot.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I've not actually proposed any alternative, have I? All I did was express a few utopian desires. We're allowed to do that by the way, *it's part of being human.*





Lo Siento. said:


> Ah, "human nature", the _other_ fall back position for the total idiot.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


>


Nuance isn't your thing, is it pal?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


>



Here's a hint. Greed is also, very clearly, a part of being human. Neither greed nor dreaming are "human nature".

I know, I know:


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 28, 2015)

It's not about greed though. It's about power, which wealth is a manifestation of.


----------



## Sparkle Motion (Mar 28, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> You seem to a little confused on the differences between ethnic groups and groups defined by lifestyle choices.


I'm not confused by anything and never said they were the same.

Cities change. People arrive, others leave. Who is to say one group or another should not be allowed to settle?  There would have been plenty who did not want to previous darker skinned people to arrive. Should they have been allowed to stop them? Who is to say where you or I should be allowed to live?


----------



## teqniq (Mar 28, 2015)

> jnmulholland: London to lose 40-year old gem, Food For Thought. Rising rents force out bits of the city that make it special. Shame http://t.co/tR8A7fx6mO


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2015)

Sparkle Motion said:


> I'm not confused by anything and never said they were the same.
> 
> Cities change. People arrive, others leave. Who is to say one group or another should not be allowed to settle?  There would have been plenty who did not want to previous darker skinned people to arrive. Should they have been allowed to stop them? Who is to say where you or I should be allowed to live?



I'm not sure why you included them in your post then. Can you explain?


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> This chap sounds like something of a wanker, tbh. He himself is a relative newcomer to the area having been there a little over 20 years and he pushed other businesses out...



Maybe you should read the original article a little more carefully.

He has been *in business at the industrial estate* for a little over 20 years and was in fact born in Leyton (which is just up the road for those unfamiliar with geography of East London) so is only a relative newcomer if you happen to be an octogenarian who has always lived in Hackney Wick.

And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he "pushed other businesses out", despite kabbes also jumping to this conclusion. Can either of you back this assertion up?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 28, 2015)

By the same measure, what evidence is there that the microbrewery pushed him out?


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2015)

kabbes said:


> By the same measure, what evidence is there that the microbrewery pushed him out?



There is no evidence that the microbrewery directly pushed him out, but there is a detailed account of how he was pushed out by a rent rise



> “I lost 28 grand during the Olympics, there were six armed police with machine guns and this place was almost a no-go zone...
> 
> “...I’d just got over that and a year later these arty types started moving in.
> 
> ...



and if there weren't potential tenants like the microbrewery who could pay the new £67,200 rent, he would presumably still be there. So I agree, it would be more accurate to say he was forced out by the agents increasing the rent by £27,000, but there's little doubt that he was forced out.

What evidence do you have that he forced any previous tenants out, or that they were forced out 20 years ago by a similar massive rent hike enabling him to more into the vacant premises?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 28, 2015)

The guy seems to turn over more than 28 grand a month normally. 67 grand a year is not a huge chunk of that. Rents increase, that's how it is.  

'These arty types. They come over here, pushing our rents up. They should go elsewhere or back to where they came from'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2015)

Sparkle Motion said:


> I'm not confused by anything and never said they were the same.
> 
> Cities change. People arrive, others leave. Who is to say one group or another should not be allowed to settle?  There would have been plenty who did not want to previous darker skinned people to arrive. Should they have been allowed to stop them? Who is to say where you or I should be allowed to live?


while i appreciate your objection to property ownership and indeed the existence of the private rented sector, i would be grateful if you could outline how you see your vision of london's future as a squatted city working.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> .
> 
> What evidence do you have that he forced any previous tenants out, or that they were forced out 20 years ago by a similar massive rent hike enabling him to more into the vacant premises?


The premises were only vacant for him to move into because other businesses couldn't afford that rent for that location.  That's just tautological.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> This is all true, but the Clash famously used to rehearse in a space in Camden owned by British Rail, next door to a car spraying business who legend has it helped them create their early paint-splattered look.
> 
> And they were referred to as a garage band in an early (uncomplimentary) review by Charles Shaar Murray, but I digress...



(going deep into super pedant territory) - Clash rehearsed in the Stables ( ie; where Proud Galleries etc are now  - the BR part of it all was the Roundhouse up the Chalk Farm end ) .


----------



## pinkmonkey (Mar 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you do know there is a big latin american community round seven sisters? no great surprise about a mexican place...


yes Ive been here ten years - I have kurdish, Colombian and Brazilian friends in Tottenham. But these restaurants are really new,, not sure what nationality owns them. They are small and not the sort of thing we are used to seeing here, The big Brazilian restaurant has been there forever and is a bit of a cafeteria. There is a fight to save it and the South American indoor market. There was a bit of a hoohaa when these new places ( and the Costa) opened.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2015)

kurds not traditionally considered latin american pinkmonkey


----------



## pinkmonkey (Mar 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> kurds not traditionally considered latin american pinkmonkey


Kurds do make up a large part of the population here, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2015)

pinkmonkey said:


> Kurds do make up a large part of the population here, though.


yes but i like apples as well


----------



## Belushi (Mar 28, 2015)

pinkmonkey said:


> Kurds do make up a large part of the population here, though.



I've lived in lots of area of London but Tottenham has to be the biggest melting pot. It's incredibly diverse around here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2015)

pinkmonkey said:


> Kurds do make up a large part of the population here, though.


yes but when we're talking about latin americans introducing a new and apparently unrelated element makes things confusing


----------



## George & Bill (Mar 28, 2015)

> gentrification is not a 'natural process' as some on here seem to think, in Berlin it is being robustly opposed.



Ho ho ho - and when exactly were you last in that city to see it definitely not being gentrified?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2015)

slowjoe said:


> > gentrification is not a 'natural process' as some on here seem to think, in Berlin it is being robustly opposed.
> 
> 
> 
> Ho ho ho - and when exactly were you last in that city to see it definitely not being gentrified?


you seem to have fucked up quoting a treelover post


----------



## George & Bill (Mar 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you seem to have fucked up quoting a treelover post



So I do - thanks for the heads-up, should now be fixed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I was just planning on just getting all the racists and anti-semites to do all the work in a massive gulag actually.
> 
> 
> Ah, "human nature", the _other_ fall back position for the total idiot.



Ask a psychologist about human nature, and the refrain will invariably be "there's no such thing, just actions and practices that people attempt to naturalise to make them seem more legitimate".
For example, British  monarchs successfully naturalised the "divine right of kings" for at least 6 centuries.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 28, 2015)

pocketscience said:


>



Why the facepalm? Human social practice, including stuff like Utopianism, has no connection to the shonky concept also known as "human nature".


----------



## J Ed (Mar 28, 2015)

The human nature argument is so stupid. Genocide, murder, paedophilia etc are all clearly part of the nature of some humans.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 28, 2015)

slowjoe said:


> Ho ho ho - and when exactly were you last in that city to see it definitely not being gentrified?



TBF, he didn't say it wasn't being gentrified (that'd be daft, and fly in the face of known fact), he said it was being "robustly opposed", which it is, as is the phenomenon of landlords taking properties out of use once leases are up, and using them for more profitable holiday lets.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2015)

we seem to have lost Sparkle Motion, who will tell us more about their opposition to private ownership of land on their return.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 28, 2015)

J Ed said:


> The human nature argument is so stupid. Genocide, murder, paedophilia etc are all clearly part of the nature of some humans.



BA and I once had a little game of pointing out every time someone used "human nature" in lieu of having an actual argument worth making.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> we seem to have lost Sparkle Motion, who will tell us more about their opposition to private ownership of land on their return.



Probably off to firebomb a laird or that old cunt Grosvenor.


----------



## George & Bill (Mar 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, he didn't say it wasn't being gentrified (that'd be daft, and fly in the face of known fact), he said it was being "robustly opposed", which it is, as is the phenomenon of landlords taking properties out of use once leases are up, and using them for more profitable holiday lets.



None of these efforts have succeeded in preventing gentrification in Berlin. Whether or not it is a 'natural' process is probably a fairly intractable question - but it is certainly a native process to the structures of trade and ownership presently in place.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> BA and I once had a little game of pointing out every time someone used "human nature" in lieu of having an actual argument worth making.


strange, just before seeing this post i took a copy of peter loptson's 'theories of human nature' off the shelf to have a look at later.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 28, 2015)

slowjoe said:


> None of these efforts have succeeded in preventing gentrification in Berlin. Whether or not it is a 'natural' process is probably a fairly intractable question - but it is certainly a native process to the structures of trade and ownership presently in place.



So "success" can only be measured if it is absolute? I'd argue that resistance has managed to *slow* gentrification in comparison to many other Euro-capitals although, as I said earlier, as tenants have more rights, it's a lot harder for landlords to railroad their tenants out of their tenancies than here, and those protections (for the meantime) aren't being weakened.


----------



## George & Bill (Mar 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> So "success" can only be measured if it is absolute? I'd argue that resistance has managed to *slow* gentrification in comparison to many other Euro-capitals although, as I said earlier, as tenants have more rights, it's a lot harder for landlords to railroad their tenants out of their tenancies than here, and those protections (for the meantime) aren't being weakened.



The question was not about the success or failure of counter-gentrification efforts, but about whether gentrification was a 'natural' process - which I take to mean, and treelover may correct me if I'm wrong, that it is inevitable or universal. The rapid gentrification of Berlin, in spite of strong opposition, seems to me to show that it is indeed an inevitable part of the wider systems that dominate our economies.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 28, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I've lived in lots of area of London but Tottenham has to be the biggest melting pot. It's incredibly diverse around here.



I think in the 2001 ish census it was most diverse with 109 nations represented.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2015)

quimcunx said:


> I think in the 2001 ish census it was most diverse with 109 nations represented.


i wonder how it was in the 2011 census.


----------



## Sparkle Motion (Mar 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> while i appreciate your objection to property ownership and indeed the existence of the private rented sector, i would be grateful if you could outline how you see your vision of london's future as a squatted city working.


I don't do grand visions of Utopias; the world is what it is. Plenty of kids will never be able to afford to live round here while ugly executive boxes are thrown up by the thousand. They will move somewhere cheaper. Perhaps you could outline how only those people who are born into an area should be allowed to stay, and should be allowed to prevent new arrivals. On that basis Most of London would still be farmland. I take it you were born in Hackney?


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 29, 2015)

same is happening in parts of my beloved bermondsey.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 29, 2015)

isn't everything that happens anywhere "natural?"


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 29, 2015)

incredibly, the packet of Sour Harribos i've just had can be nothing other than natural, no?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

Sparkle Motion said:


> I don't do grand visions of Utopias; the world is what it is. Plenty of kids will never be able to afford to live round here while ugly executive boxes are thrown up by the thousand. They will move somewhere cheaper. Perhaps you could outline how only those people who are born into an area should be allowed to stay, and should be allowed to prevent new arrivals. On that basis Most of London would still be farmland. I take it you were born in Hackney?



Why are you still insisting on thinking that a discussion about economic forces is about discrimination against groups of people?


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 29, 2015)

It's happening everywhere Barry Parade in East Dulwich a low rise shop parade that has been here for at least 30 years I can remember are now all boarded up bar the barbers and Roy Brooks Estate Agent  - the landlords 20 years lease is up in March - suspect they will want to raise the parade and build luxury apartments. Big spread in the Observer today about Chinatown under threat.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/29/chinatown-restaurants-london-threat-rent-rises


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

toblerone3 said:


> I think earlier in the thread you mentioned that you had been involved in an offer to buy out some of the Orthodox Jewish syndicates, but they had turned down the offer because they refused to deal with non-Orthodox Jewish people.  Surely there has got to be limit to this. If they were offered enough money they would sell. Property speculation is a murky business and I don't pretend to understand it, but perhaps one of the reasons for syndicates is to buy up different pieces of adjacent land to piece together a bigger piece of land and get planning permission for a bigger deal.  So the value of the bigger piece of land might be bigger than the sum of its parts.  Not saying that that there not murky borderline illegal things going on in land syndicates organised around ethnic religious ties, but there is still, surely, an underlying economic rationale for property transactions.




We were informed of a price they were looking for and we told them we would negotiate to buy. The idea was to keep the site and develop/improve the site to keep small businesses and artists there, it deserved listing as a heritage building. We didn't even get a single reply stating a price they would accept from us, they were disinterested. After this 'developer' managed to force all the occupants out and sold to the syndicate. This isn't the first time this has happened. The site had a history of changing hands in a similar way as do many others of this ilk throughout Hackney.

I use the term 'developer' loosely because on reflection none of this was about development it was simply a ruse to get all the existing tenants out and hike rents up by up to 1000%. It will be interesting to see where it leads to.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> if Batboy was right then his former landlord would have charged a higher rate for many years



He/they couldn't because of the fact no leases were in place, they were legally entrenched on lowish rents, some of the occupants had been there 20/30/40 years. The only way to get people out was to do it on the back of a dodgy planning application for housing and pay them some compensation linked to rateable values most of which did not cover moving costs let alone loss of business. They succeeded in doing this and got everyone out. We were  allowed to stay on a new lease with a two month get out clause on the basis of an unknown to us tax manipulation. 

As they now come out of the 'developer' shadows and start letting the places at ridiculous prices (up to 1000% increases), I fully expect to be given two months notice to get out. The other occupant who is legally still fighting eviction is an artist who during the intensity of battle with landlords was suffering cancer with full blown Chemo treatment, they offered him zero compensation and are still trying to evict him.

There is a history of the owners 'passing' it around amongst themselves. The current syndicate could well include members of the former syndicate, because of the nature of the business set up it is very difficult to establish who historically and presently is head honcho.  

The specific point that I am making that everyone is getting arsey about is the insular nature of the orthodox Jewish Community to the point that they exclude all other communities in their property dealings. This place could have been bought by others, those others were excluded and  stonewalled.

This is relatively unique to Hackney and Hackney is what this thread is about. There is perhaps a wider point to be made on extreme religious groups and some of their prejudicial beliefs/actions, but knowing Urban over the years as I do, the wacist chants and fury will dominate the thread, just as they are now doing.

And BTW I'm not a Hackney Hipster!


----------



## Mation (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> And BTW I'm not a Hackney Hipster!


No, but you are a potentially dangerous fool. "It's the Jews" FFS. Shame on you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

Sparkle Motion said:


> I don't do grand visions of Utopias; the world is what it is. Plenty of kids will never be able to afford to live round here while ugly executive boxes are thrown up by the thousand. They will move somewhere cheaper. Perhaps you could outline how only those people who are born into an area should be allowed to stay, and should be allowed to prevent new arrivals. On that basis Most of London would still be farmland. I take it you were born in Hackney?


so when you said people should be allowed to live where they want you mean they should be able to live where they can afford


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I don't know about the landlords of the various small businesses for hipsters in Clapton and Dalston either but I doubt they are all Orthodox Jews. And if they are that would contradict Batboy's claim that they don't give a shit about small businesses or Gentiles.



The majority of run down victorian style warehouses in the Hackney, particularly towards Stanford Hill/Tottenham area, (which is where artists and creative people tend to live because they are cheap and interesting) were or are owned by the orthodox Jewish Community and their syndicates. They sit on properties for decades preferring to rent cheap rather than to maintain or develop, there is a change going on now as they have wised up to what is going on and they are looking for top dollar and worse still people are paying it. I don't have a problem with that per se, it is the closed door policy of not letting outsiders in and lack of transparency that is my bugbear.

The irony is that the 'Hackney Hipster' as everyone mocks, tends to be those in the premier league of the creative industries and it is these people who are moving into the areas and are prepared or able to pay the inflated prices. Life at times really does reflect football.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Mation said:


> No, but you are a potentially dangerous fool. "It's the Jews" FFS. Shame on you.



You really don't read the threads do you? Most of my family are Jewish. So fuck off with your stupid insinuations.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> The majority of run down victorian style warehouses in the Hackney, particularly towards Stanford Hill/Tottenham area, (which is where artists and creative people tend to live because they are cheap and interesting) were or are owned by the orthodox Jewish Community and their syndicates. They sit on properties for decades preferring to rent cheap rather than to maintain or develop, there is a change going on now as they have wised up to what is going on and they are looking for top dollar and worse still people are paying it. I don't have a problem with that per se, it is the closed door policy of not letting outsiders in and lack of transparency that is my bugbear.
> 
> The irony is that the 'Hackney Hipster' as everyone mocks, tends to be those in the premier league of the creative industries and it is these people who are moving into the areas and are prepared or able to pay the inflated prices. Life at times really does reflect football.


the orthodox jews are our misfortune iyo then


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> You really don't read the threads do you? Most of my family are Jewish. So fuck off with your stupid insinuations.


what do you mean by the orthodox jews' syndicates? are you alleging a jewish conspiracy?


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

l;


dialectician said:


> For someone awfully concerned with the plight of the working and exploited classes you don't half chat the mystical talk.
> 
> Also human nature, it's not fucking 1950 and totalitarian theory isn't in vogue. Sort it out. If you're going to use arbitrary, ambiguous and ill-defined concepts like human nature then at least present some sort of scientific methodology or data to back up your claims.
> 
> What you fail to realise is that the w/c doesn't want to join you in your mystical game unless pushed to do so, which is becoming increasingly difficult in 2015 with capitalism's  permanent decline. So you can moan about disunity but if you're not looking to uncover the essence of said disunity then expect people to ridicule you.




Define Working Class?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> l;
> 
> 
> 
> Define Working Class?


what do you understand by working class?


----------



## Mation (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> You really don't read the threads do you? Most of my family are Jewish. So fuck off with your stupid insinuations.


I've read the thread.


----------



## lizzieloo (Mar 29, 2015)

You all need to start rioting, that'd scare 'em out.

Of course when suggesting rioting I mean the sitting in artisan bakery on a Sunday afternoon over the weekend broadsheet media supplement tutting kind,  I would never encourage anyone to run around throwing things and shouting or pooing in doorways of posh estate agents' shops cos civil disobedience of any kind is wrong kids.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


>


Lol, listen to you...
The one who self admittedly lives in an economic utopian fantasy world, who's only suggestion on how to actually achieve that utopia is to endorse a plan of "small businesses can fuck off" (because they're patently exploitative). When confronted with what to do with those now out of work working class people impacted by your masterplan, you offer "to sit down and talk to them"

When it come's down to blown minds, you're obviously speeking from experience.

I wouldn't mind if you offered some tangible suggestions on the topic, like rent caps or tighter tax regulations on large multinational or off-shore companies, the 1% ers.
But no, your only offer is fuck off small businesses.
Bravo!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2015)

Can you find Lo Siento saying "small businesses can fuck off" please?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> The majority of run down victorian style warehouses in the Hackney, particularly towards Stanford Hill/Tottenham area, (which is where artists and creative people tend to live because they are cheap and interesting) were or are owned by the orthodox Jewish Community and their syndicates. They sit on properties for decades preferring to rent cheap rather than to maintain or develop, there is a change going on now as they have wised up to what is going on and they are looking for top dollar and worse still people are paying it. I don't have a problem with that per se, it is the closed door policy of not letting outsiders in and lack of transparency that is my bugbear.
> 
> The irony is that the 'Hackney Hipster' as everyone mocks, tends to be those in the premier league of the creative industries and it is these people who are moving into the areas and are prepared or able to pay the inflated prices. Life at times really does reflect football.


i can't picture any victorian warehouses in the stamford hill area. could you name a street or two with them on?

i would also like to know where you are getting your information about property ownership and syndicates from.

i don't give a flying fuck about many of your family being jewish: i don't see why that would stop you disliking - as you so clearly do - other sections of the jewish community. it's not like being christian stopped the catholics killing lots of protestants (or indeed protestants killing lots of catholics). what you're saying about orthodox jews sits very nicely with the discourse of the far right and i'm saying that from googling some of the phrases used in your posts and seeing which other sites use them.


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i can't picture any victorian warehouses in the stamford hill area. could you name a street or two with them on?


Only warehouse/light industrial stuff I can think of is mount pleasant area and the oldest stuff there is 1920s or 1930s (I'm thinking of the de Havilland building).


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Can you find Lo Siento saying "small businesses can fuck off" please?


Key word  "endorse"
Here's the original post of mine he decided to challenge.
My conclusion is that he endorses C66's suggestion that small businesses can fuck off... otherwise I have no idea why he bothered to reply to me with such skewed opinion that small businesses are more likely to exploit employees (a topic for another thread I suspect)


----------



## toblerone3 (Mar 29, 2015)

Mation said:


> No, but you are a potentially dangerous fool. "It's the Jews" FFS. Shame on you.



To be fair Mation I think he's talking about a specific situation involving jewish a religious sect owning certain types of properties in parts of Hackney and how it relates to gentrification rather than making a general point about the jews. He has made a few slip ups in the way he has described things which he has already been criticised for on this thread.


----------



## toblerone3 (Mar 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> what do you mean by the orthodox jews' syndicates? are you alleging a jewish conspiracy?



I understood property syndicates that happen to be OJ-based rather than anything more sinister.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2015)

slowjoe said:


> The question was not about the success or failure of counter-gentrification efforts, but about whether gentrification was a 'natural' process - which I take to mean, and treelover may correct me if I'm wrong, that it is inevitable or universal.



It isn't. The features of modern gentrification that have meant a hyper-accelerated shift of demographic - liquidity and/or financing; uncontrolled external ownership; investment-driven development;diffuse ownership - have never been available on such a scale before, which meant that previous waves of demographic ebb and flux were partial, and much slower in terms of demographic shift and the concomitant shift in local infrastructure.



> The rapid gentrification of Berlin, in spite of strong opposition, seems to me to show that it is indeed an inevitable part of the wider systems that dominate our economies.



Fortunately for Berliners, in comparative terms (measured against London, New York or Madrid, say), Berlin's gentrification is slow. Given the usually-complex lease system, it's more costly to "clear" properties in order to "develop" them, so "gentrification" has mostly *so far* been piecemeal, rather than area-by-area. Neoliberal values are (thankfully) currently being offset by robust law.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why the facepalm? Human social practice, including stuff like Utopianism, has no connection to the shonky concept also known as "human nature".


Because I don't think that referring to social practices as "Human Nature" is a "fall back position for a total idiot. Since the very minute my kids were born I often see human nature at work. I'm sure the actions can also be explained in very rational scientific theories of inputs/output etc, but you can do that for the whole state of the natural universe.
Further more (and while you mention it) the utopianism he talkes about is by far more a  "shonky concept" than using the phrase human nature imo..


----------



## Mation (Mar 29, 2015)

toblerone3 said:


> To be fair Mation I think he's talking about a specific situation involving jewish a religious sect owning certain types of properties in parts of Hackney and how it relates to gentrification rather than making a general point about the jews. He has made a few slip ups in the way he has described things which he has already been criticised for on this thread.


No. Utter nonsense. The fact that they are Jewish has nothing whatsoever to do with their actions as property developers/landlords.  It's irrelevant. Groups of capitalists dealing with other groups. Batboy would be happy, it seems, if some of the groups are non-Jewish. Apparently this would be inclusive. Never mind the behaviour itself. He thinks the problem is that no one else is allowed in, behind what he thinks is the relevant boundary. It's dangerous bollocks on all fronts.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

For the record: yes I run a small business, yes I'm impacted by the fact I live in a urban area with rocketing rent prices, no I'm not exploitative to employees or customers alike.
This is a very real topic and from what I'm experiencing it's spreading world-wide extremely fast at the moment. The impacts are serious, particularly on families who depend on say the main bread-winner being involed with a small business that can't survive due to astronomical rent increases. They need to uproot families (new school for kids ect) and virtually start again. Long term it'll destroy the diversity of urban areas, where all that's left are large multinationals and their robot employees.

When I read someone offer that the only solution is to end capitalism, I just think I must be listening to a disgruntled sixth former with zero experience of the real world and it makes me laugh because it's such a cop out.

There are tangible solutions out there(e.g rent caps)  we can put in place that won't piss off the 99% but _may_ piss off the 1%.

Keep it fucking simple.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> For the record: yes I run a small business, yes I'm impacted by the fact I live in a urban area with rocketing rent prices, no I'm not exploitative to employees or customers alike.



Keeping it simple....when you say "_run_ a small business", do you mean own? 
Do you make profit?


----------



## toblerone3 (Mar 29, 2015)

No Mation it is not "utter nonsense".  If you read Batboys post #272 above he says: "This is relatively unique to Hackney and Hackney is what this thread is about"


----------



## Mation (Mar 29, 2015)

toblerone3 said:


> No Mation it is not "utter nonsense".  If you read Batboys post #272 above he says: "This is relatively unique to Hackney and Hackney is what this thread is about"


I read it and understood it. You clearly didn't do the latter. It's only 'unique to Hackney' if you define the group of nasty secretive people in the way Batboy does.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Keeping it simple....when you say "_run_ a small business", do you mean own?


Both own & run.Why??


brogdale said:


> Do you make profit?


Some years .. this year the business will make a loss. Why??


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Both own & run.Why??
> 
> Some years .. this year the business will make a loss. Why??


Why?? what?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Why?? what?


Why do you want to know?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Why do you want to know?


Because you've (now) said that you own a profit-making business and yet claim to exploit neither employees nor consumers. That's not how it works.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Because you've (now) said that you own a profit-making business and yet claim to exploit neither employees nor consumers. That's not how it works.


Oh god. not another sixth former with an attitude.
So go on then. tell me how my business works (without knowing jack shit about it other than that sometimes, at the end of the financial year we've made a slight profit, yet some years not)


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> what do you mean by the orthodox jews' syndicates? are you alleging a jewish conspiracy?



No its not a conspiracy they often work in groups or syndicates. Nothing wrong with that, I'd just like the opportunity to be on one.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Oh god. not another sixth former with an attitude.
> So go on then. tell me how my business works (without knowing jack shit about it other than that sometimes, at the end of the financial year we've made a slight profit, yet some years not)



As I'm just an ignorant sixth-former (with _an attitude) _perhaps you could explain how it is possible for a capitalist enterprise to generate profit without exploiting either workforce or consumer?


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> what do you understand by working class?



Dunno... it wasn't rhetorical....


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> For the record: yes I run a small business, yes I'm impacted by the fact I live in a urban area with rocketing rent prices, no I'm not exploitative to employees or customers alike.
> This is a very real topic and from what I'm experiencing it's spreading world-wide extremely fast at the moment. The impacts are serious, particularly on families who depend on say the main bread-winner being involed with a small business that can't survive due to astronomical rent increases. They need to uproot families (new school for kids ect) and virtually start again. Long term it'll destroy the diversity of urban areas, where all that's left are large multinationals and their robot employees.
> 
> When I read someone offer that the only solution is to end capitalism, I just think I must be listening to a disgruntled sixth former with zero experience of the real world and it makes me laugh because it's such a cop out.
> ...



There are elements on urban75 who believe that the only way out is to end all capitalism and just smash the system with no real intellectual thought of how to replace it. They have no grasp on human nature and the desires of mankind to have things like cars, mobile phones a new sofa, a holiday and computers, fuck knows what they would communicate with if capitalism ended.... smoke signals?

It isn't perfect as you and I would probably agree on, but there is no other utopia that can replace it that I can see from where I am standing.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> As I'm just an ignorant sixth-former (with _an attitude) _perhaps you could explain how it is possible for a capitalist enterprise to generate profit without exploiting either workforce or consumer?


The business runs mostly as a (skilled) freelancer collective, all paid at industry agreed tariff rates. Costs are made transparent to customers who are free to take it or leave it.

For all the years of dealing with colleagues and customers you're the first person to acuse me of being exploitative.
Quite an achievement for someone who doesn't know who I am or what I do.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> The business runs mostly as a (skilled) freelancer collective, all paid at industry agreed tariff rates. Costs are made transparent to customers who are free to take it or leave it.
> 
> For all the years of dealing with colleagues and customers your the first person to say I'm exploitative.
> Quite an achievement for someone who doesn't who I am or what I do.


Do you know the meaning of the word exploit?


----------



## Belushi (Mar 29, 2015)

Small employers are like landlords, I've yet to meet one who didn't think they were some kind of saint.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Do you know the meaning of the word exploit?


Wiki says "Defines to take advantage of something (a person, situation, etc.), especially unethically or unjustifly for one's own end."
Which is clearly not what I'm doing.
Just cut the crap and get to your point (if you have one)


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Wiki says "Defines to take advantage of something (a person, situation, etc.), especially unethically or unjustifly for one's own end."
> Which is clearly not what I'm doing.
> Just cut the crap and get to your point (if you have one)


Who retains the profit? Is it you?


----------



## cantsin (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> There are elements on urban75 who believe that the only way out is to end all capitalism and just smash the system with no real intellectual thought of how to replace it. They have no grasp on human nature and the desires of mankind to have things like cars, mobile phones a new sofa, a holiday and computers, fuck knows what they would communicate with if capitalism ended.... smoke signals?
> 
> It isn't perfect as you and I would probably agree on, but there is no other utopia that can replace it that I can see from where I am standing.



ffs...jewish conspiracy bollocks followed by the idea we wouldn't be able to 'communicate' if 'capitalism ended' - you serious ?

Laughable.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> There are elements on urban75 who believe that the only way out is to end all capitalism and just smash the system with no real intellectual thought of how to replace it. They have no grasp on human nature and the desires of mankind to have things like cars, mobile phones a new sofa, a holiday and computers, fuck knows what they would communicate with if capitalism ended.... smoke signals?
> 
> It isn't perfect as you and I would probably agree on, but there is no other utopia that can replace it that I can see from where I am standing.



Why would we be using smoke signals if capitalism did not exist?


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 29, 2015)

hasnt this been the great failure of the far, extreme left since the soviet union fell apart? namely that for all the screaming about capitalism, there is nothing, NOTHING that is put forth of any credibility to replace it.

if there is...enlighten me...


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

cantsin said:


> ffs...jewish conspiracy bollocks followed by the idea we wouldn't be able to 'communicate' if 'capitalism ended' - you serious ?
> 
> Laughable.




Please enlighten me on how to replace capitalism and with what?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Who retains the profit? Is it you?


the little accumulated profit there has been over the years, we've decided to keep as a contingency when projects get sparse. Rent is the main driver eating the contingency (this year in particular) & the reason why I'm passionate about the topic. As I see it,  rent is disproportionately high in terms of value for money, than any other cost driver we have.


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Please enlighten me on how to replace capitalism and with what?


What do you think capitalism is?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Didn't realise today was National Waste The Time Of A Small Business Owner With A Pointless Question day


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 29, 2015)

You do now.


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Didn't realise today was National Waste The Time Of A Small Business Owner With A Pointless Question day


I'm establishing what it is he thinks people want to replace, otherwise _his_ question is pointless.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> the little accumulated profit there has been over the years, we've decided to keep as a contingency when projects get sparse. Rent is the main driver eating the contingency (this year in particular) & the reason why I'm passionate about the topic. As I see it,  rent is disproportionately high in terms of value for money, than any other cost driver we have.


I'll take that as a 'yes', then? You personally retain profit resulting from the work of others?

Is your landlord exploiting you?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I'll take that as a 'yes', then? You personally retain profit resulting from the work of others?
> 
> Is your landlord exploiting you?


take what you like but that's a pathetic tangent
good luck with your a-levels


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> take what you like but that's a pathetic tangent
> good luck with your a-levels


Tangent? It's what the thread is about, and you said you're passionate about the topic?

Come on, you can't just resort to silly ad homs every time someone asks you an uncomfortable question. I can see why you wouldn't want to concede that your landlord is exploiting you though.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> For the record: yes I run a small business, yes I'm impacted by the fact I live in a urban area with rocketing rent prices, no I'm not exploitative to employees or customers alike.
> This is a very real topic and from what I'm experiencing it's spreading world-wide extremely fast at the moment. The impacts are serious, particularly on families who depend on say the main bread-winner being involed with a small business that can't survive due to astronomical rent increases. They need to uproot families (new school for kids ect) and virtually start again. Long term it'll destroy the diversity of urban areas, where all that's left are large multinationals and their robot employees.
> 
> When I read someone offer that the only solution is to end capitalism, I just think I must be listening to a disgruntled sixth former with zero experience of the real world and it makes me laugh because it's such a cop out.
> ...



When you say "the real world", what you really mean is the world as you understand and experience it. No room of course for anyone else's experience.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I'll take that as a 'yes', then? You personally retain profit resulting from the work of others?
> 
> Is your landlord exploiting you?


I assume you're a proponent of the all possession is theft theory too??


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> You really don't read the threads do you? Most of my family are Jewish. So fuck off with your stupid insinuations.



Have you got black friends?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> There are elements on urban75 who believe that the only way out is to end all capitalism and just smash the system with no real intellectual thought of how to replace it. They have no grasp on human nature and the desires of mankind to have things like cars, mobile phones a new sofa, a holiday and computers, fuck knows what they would communicate with if capitalism ended.... smoke signals?
> 
> It isn't perfect as you and I would probably agree on, but there is no other utopia that can replace it that I can see from where I am standing.



Oh jesus, really? It's "human nature" to want a mobile phone? Just think about that for a bit.


----------



## Maggot (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I'll take that as a 'yes', then? You personally retain profit resulting from the work of others?


That's irrelevant. If his employees have decent wages and conditions, he's not exploiting them.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I assume you're a proponent of the all possession is theft theory too??



Whoever said that?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> There are elements on urban75 who believe that the only way out is to end all capitalism and just smash the system with no real intellectual thought of how to replace it. They have no grasp on human nature and the desires of mankind to have things like cars, mobile phones a new sofa, a holiday and computers, fuck knows what they would communicate with if capitalism ended.... smoke signals?
> 
> It isn't perfect as you and I would probably agree on, but there is no other utopia that can replace it that I can see from where I am standing.



Says he who started a thread moaning about Capitalism. When they hike your rent, thank the shit you've just written above.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

Maggot said:


> That's irrelevant. If his employees have decent wages and conditions, he's not exploiting them.



So where does the profit come from?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> So where does the profit come from?


Wouldn't be his tenants customers, would it?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Tangent? It's what the thread is about, and you said you're passionate about the topic?
> 
> Come on, you can't just resort to silly ad homs every time someone asks you an uncomfortable question. I can see why you wouldn't want to concede that your landlord is exploiting you though.


No, you've gone on a tangent by making a false assumption about the finances of the company. The way thing look it'll be in debt by Autumn The worse case scenario is to fold early next year.
Our clients will end up going to a large multinational competitor and my partners & colleagues will have to work for them with vastly reduced conditions if they're even lucky to get a look in...


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> No, you've gone on a tangent by making a false assumption about the finances of the company. The way thing look it'll be in debt by Autumn The worse case scenario is to fold early next year.
> Our clients will end up going to a large multinational competitor and my partners & colleagues will have to work for them with vastly reduced conditions if they're even lucky to get a look in...


Competition, eh?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> No, you've gone on a tangent by making a false assumption about the finances of the company. The way thing look it'll be in debt by Autumn The worse case scenario is to fold early next year.
> Our clients will end up going to a large multinational competitor and my partners & colleagues will have to work for them with vastly reduced conditions if they're even lucky to get a look in...



You're being asked questions about how capitalism works. You can either engage in the debate or not. If you refuse to, then stop your whining.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> Whoever said that?


Nobody. But its another one of those 6th form cliches like "all wage jobs are exploitation". And one that immeadiatly gets forgotten once graduated to the real world (to answer your question upthread - I mean the world where you have to make the hard decisions in life yourself and not relying on parents handouts)


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> You really don't read the threads do you? Most of my family are Jewish. So fuck off with your stupid insinuations.


Even if most of your family are Jewish it doesn't give you the right to spout anti-semitic crap.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Nobody. But its another one of those 6th form cliches like "all wage jobs are exploitation". And one that immeadiatly gets forgotten once graduated to the real world (to answer your question upthread - I mean the world where you have to make the hard decisions in life yourself and not relying on parents handouts)



Right, so you think people say something that no one says. You also think people rely on their parents handouts. 

OK.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> You're being asked questions about how capitalism works. You can either engage in the debate or not. If you refuse to, then stop your whining.


It's not that I didn't want to engage (I think thats the last thing I can be acused of after the amount of engagement I've provided -which has been considerably more than either yours or his for example)
I didn't engage with it because it led with a completely false assumption and I thought I'd rather try to clear that up.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> It's not that I didn't want to engage (I think thats the last thing I can be acused of after the amount of engagement I've provide, which has been considerably more than either yours or his for example)
> I didn't engage with it because it led with a completely false assumption and I rather try to clear that up first



No you're refusing to engage. Now you're whining about it. And you accuse others of being childish.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> No you're refusing to engage. Now you're whining about it. And you accuse others of being childish.


Just get on with your homework.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Just get on with your homework.



Yes sir.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Didn't realise today was National Waste The Time Of A Small Business Owner With A Pointless Question day


more like waste the time of a pointless small business owner day


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> No, you've gone on a tangent by making a false assumption about the finances of the company. The way thing look it'll be in debt by Autumn The worse case scenario is to fold early next year.
> Our clients will end up going to a large multinational competitor and my partners & colleagues will have to work for them with vastly reduced conditions if they're even lucky to get a look in...



So on the one hand people who moan about Capitalism are childish. Yet here you are, like Batboy, moaning about it.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Mar 29, 2015)

maomao said:


> Only warehouse/light industrial stuff I can think of is mount pleasant area and the oldest stuff there is 1920s or 1930s (I'm thinking of the de Havilland building).


Back of Stokey tube station, bottom of Stamford Hill are a few warehouses, my friend used to squat there, got a mate who lives there, now. Also Fountayne Road in Tottenham. I'm not sure what being an Orthodox Jew has to do with anything but I do know that Fountayne road is mostly Jewish owned and it looks very likely that the whole lot will go before long. They only got a reprieve because of the credit crunch. The driver for development is Haringey council. My friends who rent there have no bad word to say about the landlord, only the council, who wants everyone out and more luxury flats.


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2015)

pinkmonkey said:


> Back of Stokey tube station, bottom of Stamford Hill


I've crossed Belfast Rd hundreds of times, always thought it was a little dead end till now. But are they Victorian?


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I really don't get why anyone would go for the whole "it must be the jews!" conspiracy theory when the financial motivations for _all landlords and developers_ to fuck over all and sundry are so very obvious. It is properly obtuse.



Problems of identity and association.

Sort of the opposite of the kind of racism you get where someone holds racist beliefs about supposed groups as a whole, but sticks in disclaimers that exclude people of different races they might actually know ('I didn't mean Dave, he is ok, I actually know what he is like and get to see all the things we have in common'). Here we have the opposite, where some shit someone is going through has lead to a conflict with others, and the desire to communicate, understand and frame this conflict draws in some broader stereotypes associated with whatever identity labels have been attached to the specific, visible bad guys.

Part of the solution is information, including trying to find out what other aspects of the story might exist and should be brought into the mix to balance things out. In the absence of actually being able to research the specific situation and people, the broader discussion about capitalism, property developers etc is very good. 

But even if armed with all the facts, we are sometimes going to run into situations where its easy to see how the reality has played up to stereotypes rather than disproved them. At times like those the people affected may require help in not letting their experience sink into their brains in a manner that covers far more territory than it should. And thats where the apparent 'values' of our peers kicks in. To give the most obvious example, we might well expect many on u75 to put plenty of energy into slaying hideous things spoken about jews. We might expect to see less energy put into the destruction of sweeping generalisations about people of the upper class. There may be some bloody good reasons for that, I'm just pointing it out because when in a situation of conflict, especially shared conflict where most of your time spent discussing it is with people who have got the same information about and impression of the opposing side, and have similar interests at stake, there may be no broader communities 'values' getting in on the act and potentially adding balance.

Personally during one of the most important formative years of my very early adult life, I had a couple of bad experiences with people who happened to be from Glasgow. I could observe my mind building an association, and it required conscious effort to prevent something stupid happening to my worldview in regard Glaswegians. On that occasion there was very little input from anyone else, either my peers or a wider community, but as is probably obvious I am kind of interested in these processes so I guess I just checked myself. However the fact I'm still bringing it up now, nearly 20 years later, tells me that forces involved with these experiences were quite powerful.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> So on the one hand people who moan about Capitalism are childish. Yet here you are, like Batboy, moaning about it.


err...I think you may have overlooked that these people know better than you; they've...


pocketscience said:


> graduated to the real world



Just be told.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> Why would we be using smoke signals if capitalism did not exist?



Because no 'consumer' goods would exist. History has taught us that communism is a basket case


Blagsta said:


> Oh jesus, really? It's "human nature" to want a mobile phone? Just think about that for a bit.



it's a metaphor.


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Because no 'consumer' goods would exist. History has taught us that communism is a basket case



A basket case that got into space.

And yeah right, there are only two ways, sure. Without consumerism I would be content to eat mud all day.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Because no 'consumer' goods would exist. History has taught us that communism is a basket case



You realise they had consumer goods in Communist countries?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

Belushi said:


> You realise they had consumer goods in Communist countries?


...and no joooish landlords!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 29, 2015)

Phew, it's a good job modern liberal capitalism is the best possible system, eh—given that there is no alternative to it possible without eating bark.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Because no 'consumer' goods would exist. History has taught us that communism is a basket case



For starters communism hasn't ever really existed. Or the examples you're likely to cite weren't.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Even if most of your family are Jewish it doesn't give you the right to spout anti-semitic crap.



I have every right to say what I have said on these threads, it is not anti-semetic except in yours and a couple of other views.

For the record again! my two sons are Jewish so is their Mother and I have Jewish bloodlines going back just two generations. What I am saying is not anti-semetic. If it is I suggest you get the moderators to ban me. 

Is it islamaphobic to slag off Muslims that believe in sharia law (which is a huge majority of them incidentally) and the specific oppression of those whom are gay? Because that is a fact and it makes me unhappy about that specific point of islam and Muslims especially when I see in Hackney the setting up of stalls promoting Sharia law as a way of living in the UK. 

And this is what you are missing I have specifically chosen a point of how the orthodox Jewish community keep outsiders out of property dealings, if it was the other way round

and I did not want to do business with them you would rightly be shouting me down. 

It makes me laugh on here the polarisation and two dimensions that come into play when you cannot pick unique specific parts particularly of religions/religious beliefs and those communities who wholesale assign themselves to those beliefs for fear of being labelled racist and anti-semetic or Islamaphobic. Islam is largely homophobic and sexist*, the irony on U75 is quite incredible. 

If something is wrong within a select group of people we have to challenge it and not give into dogmatic approaches as you and others are doing. 



* And yes so is Christianity.


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> For starters communism hasn't ever really existed. Or the examples you're likely to cite weren't.



Attempts at creating it have been genuine, and they weren't believed to be fully communist (yet) anyway, at the time.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> Attempts at creating it have been genuine, and they weren't believed to be fully communist (yet) anyway, at the time.



You always pull me on this point.


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 29, 2015)

Belushi said:


> You realise they had consumer goods in Communist countries?



Daft isn't it.  In whatever system we live in, or can live in, humans still produce and consume stuff.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Because no 'consumer' goods would exist. History has taught us that communism is a basket case
> 
> 
> it's a metaphor.



This is absurd.  People still want to be able to communicate and watch soaps and look at pictures of cats on the internet.  I see no reason why they won't be able to do all these things under a different system to capitalism.  In fact, maybe more people will be able to enjoy being able to communicate via the mobile phone because wealth will be equally distributed. 

Not everyone in the world, or even in the UK can afford a mobile phone.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

pinkmonkey said:


> Back of Stokey tube station, bottom of Stamford Hill are a few warehouses, my friend used to squat there, got a mate who lives there, now. Also Fountayne Road in Tottenham. I'm not sure what being an Orthodox Jew has to do with anything but I do know that Fountayne road is mostly Jewish owned and it looks very likely that the whole lot will go before long. They only got a reprieve because of the credit crunch. The driver for development is Haringey council. My friends who rent there have no bad word to say about the landlord, only the council, who wants everyone out and more luxury flats.



I am repeating myself time and time again some people are getting it others are not, context is getting very blurred here. 

I know Fontayne Road development and it is owned by members of the orthodox Jewish community (again probably as a syndicate as that is how they do these things). 

Our first landlords in Hackney were fine, the working as a syndicate is fine, you could argue that our second Landlords getting a 1000% more rental income is fine if you subscribe to a free market. What is not fine is how the Orthodox Jewish community operate in a way on property that is exclusive to others in a way that would not allow me or you to join their syndicate or buy the property. I don't know of any other community that operates this way. 

The councils are morons. When we challenged the development at our place in Hackney, we knew what was going on, the 'developers' were never going to develop anything, they were going to sell it and the only way they could get bigger money for it was by getting out the existing tenants. And that is what they did. The same thing will probably happen at Fontayne rd. 

The councils are very driven to get larger revenues through local taxation and grants. Bigger better developments will increase tax revenue for them, except in the case of where we were that is not going to happen, they were hoodwinked, no development at present is taking place.


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> And this is what you are missing I have specifically chosen a point of how the orthodox Jewish community keep outsiders out of property dealings, if it was the other way round



You should strongly consider narrowing your statements so that they refer to the people you've actually had dealings with, rather than such a sweeping generalisation as that. One that I note has already been contradicted by someone elses anecdotal evidence on the thread.



> If something is wrong within a select group of people we have to challenge it and not give into dogmatic approaches as you and others are doing.



But if that is to be done successfully, it means treading very carefully around labels and all the ways they get used, stretched, etc. 

One of the first things to be dealt with sensibly is the relationship between the problem and the group. Is there something about the group that makes the problem more likely to occur, or less likely to be dealt with well, than with other groups? Is any reference to the problem and the group a completely false one? And if there is some kind of link that can legitimately be discussed, be careful not to talk about it in a manner that suggests you think all members of the group suffer from this problem. Or that other groups are immune.

It's also rather important to differentiate between religious beliefs/interpretations, the beliefs that large groups of people are thought to hold, and the actual beliefs of individuals. 

These sorts of things become even more important if you point you are making fits like a glove with a classic stereotype. Since your complaint seems to be increasingly boiling down to jews being too cliquey, that applies here.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> This is absurd.  People still want to be able to communicate and watch soaps and look at pictures of cats on the internet.  I see no reason why they won't be able to do all these things under a different system to capitalism.  In fact, maybe more people will be able to enjoy being able to communicate via the mobile phone because wealth will be equally distributed.
> 
> Not everyone in the world, or even in the UK can afford a mobile phone.



tell me how many mobile phones there are in the UK..... 88 million


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Our first landlords in Hackney were fine, the working as a syndicate is fine, you could argue that our second Landlords getting a 1000% more rental income is fine if you subscribe to a free market. What is not fine is how the Orthodox Jewish community operate in a way on property that is exclusive to others in a way that would not allow me or you to join their syndicate or buy the property. I don't know of any other community that operates this way.



If they only want to sell to their mates that's up to them, unless you think compulsory purchase powers should be extended to property owned by Jews?


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> tell me how many mobile phones there are in the UK..... 88 million



There's plenty of food around, too, but many can't afford to eat it.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> it's a metaphor.



For what?


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> tell me how many mobile phones there are in the UK..... 88 million



I work with people who can't afford phones, I'm not talking out of my arse here. 

Some people have two or even three active phones.  How many of those 88 million phones are spares or are old ones sitting in someone's drawer?  Just because there are 88 million phones doesn't mean every person can afford one.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

elbows said:


> You should strongly consider narrowing your statements so that they refer to the people you've actually had dealings with, rather than such a sweeping generalisation as that. One that I note has already been contradicted by someone elses anecdotal evidence on the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Look I know I am not being sensitive, but I am certainly not being anti-Semitic. too much dogma and too little straight talking goes on these boards for fear of ridicule and flaming. I am being deliberately controversial, but I am right in what I am 'specifically' highlighting.

We are talking about antiquated communities tied to very strict religious and cultural beliefs and they have practices that if placed in reverse would not be tolerated.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> So on the one hand people who moan about Capitalism are childish. Yet here you are, like Batboy, moaning about it.


Except that's not what happened here is it.
On reqest, I've been anocdotally highlighting my opinion that through a lack of regulation, property owners and big businesses are driving small businesses out of urban areas, in particular showing how an ethical businesses model with low margins is affected.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 29, 2015)

what are you saying, Batboy - that if it is was a load of WASPs in say africa only selling to other WASPs then there wouldn't be a problem laying into them? or that there'd be no problem describing them as WASPs selling to other WASPs and keeping hte market to themselves??


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> I work with people who can't afford phones, I'm not talking out of my arse here.
> 
> Some people have two or even three active phones.  How many of those 88 million phones are spares or are old ones sitting in someone's drawer?  Just because there are 88 million phones doesn't mean every person can afford one.



I am well aware of those who are so poor they can hardly afford to eat let alone own a mobile phone, but the fact is the vast majority of people do have a mobile phone.


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> I know Fontayne Road development and it is owned by members of the orthodox Jewish community (again probably as a syndicate as that is how they do these things).





> What is not fine is how the Orthodox Jewish community operate in a way on property that is exclusive to others in a way that would not allow me or you to join their syndicate or buy the property. I don't know of any other community that operates this way.



I really hope you were very careful in ruling out any other explanation for their failings to deal with you in a manner you found acceptable. 

More detail please. Were serious offers made to them, and would they have other reasons not to take them seriously? Perhaps, for example, the nature of offers for property that come from existing stakeholders in the area are often not treated quite the same by the developer. Perhaps it has everything to do with that and much less do do with how jewish the offer was.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> I am well aware of those who are so poor they can hardly afford to eat let alone own a mobile phone, but the fact is the vast majority of people do have a mobile phone.



Oh, well that's okay then.  Never mind about those who can't eh.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Except that's not what happened here is it.
> On reqest, I've been anocdotally highlighting my opinion that through a lack of regulation, property owners and big businesses are driving small businesses out of urban areas, in particular showing how an ethical businesses model with low margins is affected.



But that's how Capitalism works. If you're pro Capitalist, suck it up.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Except that's not what happened here is it.
> On reqest, I've been anocdotally highlighting my opinion that through a lack of regulation, property owners and big businesses are driving small businesses out of urban areas, in particular showing how an ethical businesses model with low margins is affected.



I think what you've demonstrated is that capitalism is inimical to ethical business models with low margins.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 29, 2015)

"me and my white christian mates who are English born only tend to sell to other white English born christians in our area. we try to avoid business with anyone else".


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> For starters communism hasn't ever really existed. Or the examples you're likely to cite weren't.



And your vision of utopia is likely to exist?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> And your vision of utopia is likely to exist?



Hang on I'll just fetch my crystal ball.

It deserves to though, yeah.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> what are you saying, Batboy - that if it is was a load of WASPs in say africa only selling to other WASPs then there wouldn't be a problem laying into them? or that there'd be no problem describing them as WASPs selling to other WASPs and keeping hte market to themselves??



?..... where the fuck did the wasps come from ?


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Hang on I'll just fetch my crystal ball.
> 
> It deserves to though, yeah.



Well you don't have the answer then.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> If they only want to sell to their mates that's up to them, unless you think compulsory purchase powers should be extended to property owned by Jews?



It's not quite like that though is it? We are talking large scale industrial estates that affect thousands of people. What if everyone in my street only wanted to sell to white people to keep Asian and Black people out from owning property?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Well you don't have the answer then.



I do have the answer. But it's up against the north face of the K2 at the moment. But it won't always be that way. Capitalism can't survive indefinitely. Especially when it starts pissing those off who actually promote it, such as yourself.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I do have the answer. But it's up against the north face of the K2 at the moment. But it won't always be that way. Capitalism can't survive indefinitely. Especially when it starts pissing those off who actually promote it, such as yourself.



I know capitalism in its present form is incredibly problematic and painful , you only have to look at my posts elsewhere, I have gone more to the left in my way of thinking as I have got older, I really do feel others pain, but you will never erase the basic tenements of human nature and that is motored by want, greed and desire for all things shiny, you can only regulate and encourage those that embrace a fairer system including business owners (because there are many that do). Capitalism has existed since the year dot, it will not go away it just needs major reform.


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 29, 2015)

Capitalism began and spread out many years ago (but still just a blip in human history), so it'll likely end, too.  When it does, and what will/can replace it is...


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

elbows said:


> I really hope you were very careful in ruling out any other explanation for their failings to deal with you in a manner you found acceptable.
> 
> More detail please. Were serious offers made to them, and would they have other reasons not to take them seriously? Perhaps, for example, the nature of offers for property that come from existing stakeholders in the area are often not treated quite the same by the developer. Perhaps it has everything to do with that and much less do do with how jewish the offer was.



Serious offers were made. I also consulted with local council officials and I am very careful in ruling out other explanations.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> Capitalism began and spread out many years ago (but still just a blip in human history), so it'll likely end, too.  When it does, and what will/can replace it is...



Beer?


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> Oh, well that's okay then.  Never mind about those who can't eh.



I didn't say it was ok.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> I know capitalism in its present form is incredibly problematic and painful , you only have to look at my posts elsewhere, I have gone more to the left in my way of thinking as I have got older, I really do feel others pain, but you will never erase the basic tenements of human nature and that is motored by want, greed and desire for all things shiny, you can only regulate and encourage those that embrace a fairer system including business owners (because there are many that do). Capitalism has existed since the year dot, it will not go away it just needs major reform.



It hasn't existed since the year dot. In fact, communism (on a small not national scale) came before it. Unless you think primitive tribes set up markets.


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Beer?



Your turn.  Tell me more about Human Nature.


----------



## toblerone3 (Mar 29, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> If they only want to sell to their mates that's up to them, unless you think compulsory purchase powers should be extended to property owned by Jews?



Its legally OK, but also potentially dodgy (perhaps) to discriminate on ethnic/religious grounds in property transactions.  It would be illegal if a public sector body did it.  Ethnic/religious discrimination is only legal in unadvertised private transactions, any advertisement of this as a criteria for sale would be illegal.


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> It hasn't existed since the year dot. In fact, communism (on a small not national scale) came before it. Unless you think primitive tribes set up markets.



Or based their entire societies on markets.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> It hasn't existed since the year dot. In fact, communism (on a small not national scale) came before it. Unless you think primitive tribes set up markets.



What are you banging on about? 

Shiny things include gold and jewellery of which the ancient Egyptians, Romans and countless other groups of people before them traded upon, communism was light years away. The wages were worse then because you got paid fuck all.

Even Jesus was brought gifts that were revered. Capitalism in its old sense was based upon trading goods, Modern capitalism can be traced back to the 14th century through feudalism and land owners.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2015)

Oh wow


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> Your turn.  Tell me more about Human Nature.



Basic human nature of the majority of people.....

1. I need food and Water.
2. I need shelter.
3. I want a 'mercedes'.*


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> What are you banging on about?
> 
> Shiny things include gold and jewellery of which the ancient Egyptians, Romans and countless other groups of people before them traded upon, communism was light years away. The wages were worse then because you got paid fuck all.
> 
> Even Jesus was brought gifts that were revered. Capitalism in its old sense was based upon trading goods, Modern capitalism can be traced back to the 14th century through feudalism and land owners.



A capitalist doesn't know what capitalism is.  It's become so naturalised.  Nothing specific, historically speaking. It always was, is and always will be.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> I have every right to say what I have said on these threads, it is not anti-semetic except in yours and a couple of other views.
> 
> For the record again! my two sons are Jewish so is their Mother and I have Jewish bloodlines going back just two generations. What I am saying is not anti-semetic. If it is I suggest you get the moderators to ban me.
> 
> ...


You're just pissed off that this syndicate won't sell to you. It's their choice who they sell to, and if they choose not to sell to you tough, just deal with it.

But none of that gives you the right to spout the anti-jewish shite you've been posting.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> You're just pissed off that this syndicate won't sell to you. It's their choice who they sell to, and if they choose not to sell to you tough, just deal with it.
> 
> But none of that gives you the right to spout the anti-jewish shite you've been posting.



Great I am only going to sell my house to white people... ok?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> I think what you've demonstrated is that capitalism is inimical to ethical business models with low margins.


Where the property owners are unregulated to exploit the market, then yes, ethical businesses (e.g: pay decent wages, source locally, pay taxes locally etc) will probably be prone to being the first to bite the dust.
In Germany, a law has just been passed called the "Mietpreisbremse" literally translated "Rent Price Brake" i.e: putting a brake on rent price increases.
Its sole intention is to stop the kind of price bubbles in specific districts.
At the moment it only concerns rented dometic property, but plans for an expansion into commercial property are in place.
Its sole aim is to scare away property speculators from areas where local people have created a convivial place to live and work but, due to said speculation, get run out of town...
http://www.bmjv.de/DE/Themen/BauenundWohnen/Mietpreisbremse/_node.html


It's democratic, easy to do and only hurts a minute percentage of the population (usually who live miles away from the impacted districts) that can't fulfil their greed any more.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> What are you banging on about?
> 
> Shiny things include gold and jewellery of which the ancient Egyptians, Romans and countless other groups of people before them traded upon, communism was light years away. The wages were worse then because you got paid fuck all.
> 
> Even Jesus was brought gifts that were revered. Capitalism in its old sense was based upon trading goods, Modern capitalism can be traced back to the 14th century through feudalism and land owners.



So you're arguing in favour of your Landlords. Marvelous.


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> What are you banging on about?
> 
> Shiny things include gold and jewellery of which the ancient Egyptians, Romans and countless other groups of people before them traded upon, communism was light years away. The wages were worse then because you got paid fuck all.
> 
> Even Jesus was brought gifts that were revered. Capitalism in its old sense was based upon trading goods, Modern capitalism can be traced back to the 14th century through feudalism and land owners.


Capitalism is not merely 'trading goods'. This is why I asked you (and you didn't bother to answer) what you thought capitalism was. I think very few people who are opposed to capitalism are thinking of a society where no 'trading goods' happens.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

_Capitalism has always been around. It's the only system that works apart from when it come to Orthodox Jews._

And you say I'm spouting shite. Read what your position is.


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> Your turn.  Tell me more about Human Nature.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> You're just pissed off that this syndicate won't sell to you. It's their choice who they sell to, and if they choose not to sell to you tough, just deal with it.
> 
> But none of that gives you the right to spout the anti-jewish shite you've been posting.


yes. but it seems to me this 'anti-jewish spite' he's spouting may be precisely the reason they aren't selling to him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Great I am only going to sell my house to white people... ok?


this is i suspect a pre-existing policy.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Great I am only going to sell my house to white people... ok?



No you'd sell it to the highest bidder. Because of your Jewishness.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Beer?


craft beer, no doubt


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> What are you banging on about?
> 
> Shiny things include gold and jewellery of which the ancient Egyptians, Romans and countless other groups of people before them traded upon, communism was light years away. The wages were worse then because you got paid fuck all.
> 
> Even Jesus was brought gifts that were revered. Capitalism in its old sense was based upon trading goods, Modern capitalism can be traced back to the 14th century through feudalism and land owners.


er... wages did exist back in antient times. wasn't jesus' own (adoptive) father a carpenter? and who made the gifts for jesus? was it a) the three magi, or b) someone who made things in return for money?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Where the property owners are unregulated to exploit the market, then yes, ethical businesses (e.g: pay decent wages, source locally, pay taxes locally etc) will probably be prone to being the first to bite the dust.
> In Germany, a law has just been passed called the "Mietpreisbremse" literally translated "Rent Price Brake" i.e: putting a brake on rent price increases.
> Its sole intention is to stop the kind of price bubbles in specific districts.
> At the moment it only concerns rented dometic property, but plans for an expansion into commercial property are in place.
> ...



So why isn't that happening in the UK?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Basic human nature of the majority of people.....
> 
> 1. I need food and Water.
> 2. I need shelter.
> 3. I want a 'mercedes'.*


oh dear. it is surprising you're in a relationship AT ALL as you seem to put yourself first all the time: it's 'me, me, me' with you, isn't it.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> So why isn't that happening in the UK?


imo a broken democracy


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Basic human nature of the majority of people.....
> 
> 1. I need food and Water.
> 2. I need shelter.
> 3. I want a 'mercedes'.*



And people's desires aren't manipulated in any way by Capital's marketing strategies of course. People desired Mercedes even before they existed, no doubt.


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> er... wages did exist back in antient times. wasn't jesus' own (adoptive) father a carpenter? and who made the gifts for jesus? was it a) the three magi, or b) someone who made things in return for money?


None of those prove the existence of wage labour.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> A capitalist doesn't know what capitalism is.  It's become so naturalised.  Nothing specific, historically speaking. It always was, is and always will be.




Look you can carve capitalism up in many ways, the base requisite is that we all like some form of shiny thing. And shiny thing is a metaphor for gift, gizmo, gadget or something to decorate ourselves with, capitalism


Pickman's model said:


> this is i suspect a pre-existing policy.



Fuck off is it.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> oh dear. it is surprising you're in a relationship AT ALL as you seem to put yourself first all the time: it's 'me, me, me' with you, isn't it.



context.


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 29, 2015)

Jesus.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 29, 2015)

Capitalism is not "selling stuff".


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> People desired Mercedes even before they existed, no doubt.








^^ this is the mercedes the cars were named after


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> context.


no, you said that iyo human nature was "i need ... i need ... i want". no "we" there: you're taking the wee now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Fuck off is it.


i'd like to believe you.


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Look you can carve capitalism up in many ways, the base requisite is that we all like some form of shiny thing. And shiny thing is a metaphor for gift, gizmo, gadget or something to decorate ourselves with, capitalism



You don't know what the word capitalism means. Really. Look it up.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 29, 2015)

Isn't capitalism - u want that thing I have? Give me that thing you have for it then. 

Try getting rid of that that process.

The only fair thing I can see would be for a fair tax system plus control over housing market. Only route out.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

FTR, 'shiny things' far pre-date Capitalism. All Capitalism does is introduce profit into trade and organises humans accordingly to those ends.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> And people's desires aren't manipulated in any way by Capital's marketing strategies of course. People desired Mercedes even before they existed, no doubt.



Mercedes is a metaphor hence the * .....


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> Isn't capitalism - u want that thing I have? Give me that thing you have for it then.
> 
> Try reversing that process.


No, it's not. But persuading everyone that it is is a neat way of making sure no-one objects to it.


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Mercedes is a metaphor hence the * .....


You don't know what the word metaphor means either. Are there any words that you do understand the meaning of?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

maomao said:


> None of those prove the existence of wage labour.


back in 1867 marx pointed out that mercenary armies were the earliest example of large scale wage labour in the ancient world. but there are plenty of smaller examples too. sailors didn't sail ships for free, you know. but let's see your proof that there was no wage labour in the antient world. if you have one.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> er... wages did exist back in antient times. wasn't jesus' own (adoptive) father a carpenter? and who made the gifts for jesus? was it a) the three magi, or b) someone who made things in return for money?



Don't think the Ancient Egyptians paid the minimum wage to be honest, but perhaps elsewhere there  were payments maybe for military?


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> craft beer, no doubt



Dalston Beer


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Don't think the Ancient Egyptians paid the minimum wage to be honest, but perhaps elsewhere there  were payments maybe for military?


utterly fucking irrelevant to the post you claim to answer.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

Boats are relatively recent though, aren't they?


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 29, 2015)

I know for a fact that the ancient Egyptians set up Job Seekers Allowance.


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> back in 1867 marx pointed out that mercenary armies were the earliest example of large scale wage labour in the ancient world. but there are plenty of smaller examples too. sailors didn't sail ships for free, you know. but let's see your proof that there was no wage labour in the antient world. if you have one.


I made no such assertion so don't need to provide proof. There probably were wages in the anxient middle east but the existence of crafstmen or the obtainability of gold, frankincense and myrh go no way to proving that.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 29, 2015)

No ones answered wether it is okay for him to only sell his house to whites?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

maomao said:


> I made no such assertion so don't need to provide proof. There probably were wages in the anxient middle east but the existence of crafstmen or the obtainability of gold, frankincense and myrh go no way to proving that.


no: but gold doesn't make extract itself or make itself into jewellery or coins or whatnot. to do that in those days, as in these, took wages.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 29, 2015)

Did they pay Nat ins?


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> no, you said that iyo human nature was "i need ... i need ... i want". no "we" there: you're taking the wee now.



Fuck off... is it me?... it is everyone. 
Why are you getting personal with the 'relationship' comments and taking out of context that post? You know perfectly well what I was trying to illustrate.


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Look I know I am not being sensitive, but I am certainly not being anti-Semitic. too much dogma and too little straight talking goes on these boards for fear of ridicule and flaming. I am being deliberately controversial, but I am right in what I am 'specifically' highlighting.
> 
> We are talking about antiquated communities tied to very strict religious and cultural beliefs and they have practices that if placed in reverse would not be tolerated.


Groups of individuals coalescing to trade and determine how their capital is used/aimed? Happens all the time. Orthadox jews in this case appear to be doing it as individuals/families. How is it different to a co-operative which only trades with other co-ops?  And corporations - syndicates of banks and funds - do it all the time...


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

maomao said:


> You don't know what the word capitalism means. Really. Look it up.



It's objective in my view. Check history, things were being sold and traded many years back and on the backs of others labour. Modern Capitalism is I grant you different only due to the sophistication and complexity of the trade and the introduction of the word profit.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Coolfonz said:


> Groups of individuals coalescing to trade and determine how their capital is used/aimed? Happens all the time. Orthadox jews in this case appear to be doing it as individuals/families. How is it different to a co-operative which only trades with other co-ops?  And corporations - syndicates of banks and funds - do it all the time...



So you are ok with the banks practices?


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> no: but gold doesn't make extract itself or make itself into jewellery or coins or whatnot. to do that in those days, as in these, took wages.


And people only learned to work wood when some kindly boss type popped up and offered them 3 shekels an hour to do so. Even now a lot of craftsmen don't get 'wages' but work for themselves. Frankincense and myrh are agricultural products that could be sold at marketby the producer (maybe passing through a couple of independent merchants on the way) and gold can equally bemined byindividuals or groups of individuals.


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> It's not quite like that though is it? We are talking large scale industrial estates that affect thousands of people. What if everyone in my street only wanted to sell to white people to keep Asian and Black people out from owning property?



It's not the same. You say (erroneously in fact) that Orthadox jews only deal with other Orthadox jews. In which case they leave a lot of other deals to `others` as the Orthadox are a pretty small group in the UK...


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> It's objective in my view. Check history, things were being sold and traded many years back and on the backs of others labour. Modern Capitalism is I grant you different only due to the sophistication and complexity of the trade and the introduction of the word profit.


You didn't look it up did you.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Coolfonz said:


> It's not the same. You say (erroneously in fact) that Orthadox jews only deal with other Orthadox jews. In which case they leave a lot of other deals to `others` as the Orthadox are a pretty small group in the UK...



Not in Hackney they are not and this thread is about Hackney, or at least was until the last 100 posts.


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> So you are ok with the banks practices?



You just lost your argument.

You made the case that the Orthadox (in Hackney) were a special case. In fact they are not they are a form of co-operative/corporation.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

maomao said:


> You didn't look it up did you.



I don't need to look it up.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> They have no grasp on human nature and the desires of mankind to have things like cars, mobile phones a new sofa, a holiday and computers, fuck knows what they would communicate with if capitalism ended.... smoke signals?



Like these things only, and can only exist, through capitalism? Lol


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> imo a broken democracy



What does that mean?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> Isn't capitalism - u want that thing I have? Give me that thing you have for it then.
> 
> Try getting rid of that that process.
> 
> The only fair thing I can see would be for a fair tax system plus control over housing market. Only route out.



No its not.


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> I don't need to look it up.


You do if you're going to argue about it in public because you're making yourself look silly.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> It's objective in my view. Check history, things were being sold and traded many years back and on the backs of others labour. Modern Capitalism is I grant you different only due to the sophistication and complexity of the trade and the introduction of the word profit.



These things that are traded. How are they produced?


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Nobody. But its another one of those 6th form cliches like "all wage jobs are exploitation". And one that immeadiatly gets forgotten once graduated to the real world (to answer your question upthread - I mean the world where you have to make the hard decisions in life yourself and not relying on parents handouts)



Fucks sake


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Coolfonz said:


> You just lost your argument.
> 
> You made the case that the Orthadox (in Hackney) were a special case. In fact they are not they are a form of co-operative/corporation.



No I didn't say they were a special case.

 I stated that in Hackney they own lots of properties and as a community they will not include you or I in their syndicates or consider selling their property assets to outsiders. And I don't think that is right. 

I can join a co-operative I cannot join an Orthodox Jewish Property syndicate.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

maomao said:


> You don't know what the word metaphor means either. Are there any words that you do understand the meaning of?



yes...fuck off!


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> No I didn't say they were a special case.
> 
> I stated that in Hackney they own lots of properties and as a community they will not include you or I in their syndicates or consider selling their property assets to outsiders. And I don't think that is right.
> 
> I can join a co-operative I cannot join an Orthodox Jewish Property syndicate.



Ok then, they aren't a special case in which case their ethnicity isn't relevant.


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

Coolfonz said:


> Ok then, they aren't a special case in which case their ethnicity isn't relevant.



No, why should we have special cases for one community to exclude another?


----------



## Batboy (Mar 29, 2015)

This thread is now getting officially boring.  I am off ... good luck everyone and have a great week.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Please enlighten me on how to replace capitalism and with what?




feck, you're right, there are no alternatives


Batboy said:


> Look I know I am not being sensitive, but I am certainly not being anti-Semitic. too much dogma and too little straight talking goes on these boards for fear of ridicule and flaming. I am being deliberately controversial, but I am right in what I am 'specifically' highlighting.
> 
> We are talking about antiquated communities tied to very strict religious and cultural beliefs and they have practices that if placed in reverse would not be tolerated.



Jews / usury / sharp business practises etc ....heard it all before sunshine


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Fuck off... is it me?... it is everyone.
> Why are you getting personal with the 'relationship' comments and taking out of context that post? You know perfectly well what I was trying to illustrate.


and i wish i didn't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> No I didn't say they were a special case.
> 
> I stated that in Hackney they own lots of properties and as a community they will not include you or I in their syndicates or consider selling their property assets to outsiders. And I don't think that is right.
> 
> I can join a co-operative I cannot join an Orthodox Jewish Property syndicate.


I'm a little confused by this, tbh. Maybe I'm missing something, but surely the existence of such restrictive syndicates would exert a downward pressure on property values and rents in an area, not an upward one.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> What does that mean?


It means that (as far as I understand) it's not happening in the UK because UK democracy is broken  - at least on a local representative level. That's probably down to maggies jaunts in the 80's, culling local councils administration powers etc (but I could be wrong here, maybe they never existed at all).

The German "Laende" (States - as opposed to the federal _Bund_) who pushed this particular legislation through to a federal level wield much more democratic power for their electorate due to their ability to administrate their own fiscal and legislative power.

In the UK, who ever get's voted in in say Hackney would still have to push such legislation past a bunch of cronies in Chipping Norton. and we all know that aint gunna happen.

eta: I'd gladly be corrected on the political stuff mentioned here


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> It means that (as far as I understand) it's not happening in the UK because UK democracy is broken  - at least on a local representative level. That's probably down to maggies jaunts in the 80's, culling local councils administration powers etc (but I could be wrong here, maybe they never existed at all).
> 
> The German "Laende" (States - as opposed to the federal _Bund_) who pushed this particular legislation through to a federal level wield much more democratic power for their electorate due to their ability to administrate their own fiscal and legislative power.
> 
> In the UK, who ever get's voted in in say Hackney would still have to push such legislation past a bunch of cronies in Chipping Norton. and we all know that aint gunna happen.



"Maggies jaunts"? Why did they happen? What happened to the post war consensus and why?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> "Maggies jaunts"? Why did they happen?


Like I say, I'm not even sure if it's a fact it was her 80s jaunts that changed it or if it ever existed.


Blagsta said:


> What happened to the post war consensus and why?


What's that got to do with it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> "Maggies jaunts"? Why did they happen? What happened to the post war consensus and why?


Was it a consensus, or is it better to think of it as a settlement?

I think ps is right that Thatcher's wrecking of local democracy has left us far more vulnerable to this kind of theft than we would otherwise be. It was a key part to breaking the settlement, ensuring, for instance, that councils would not be able - not have the power - to provide housing for people any more.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Was it a consensus, or is it better to think of it as a settlement?
> 
> I think ps is right that Thatcher's wrecking of local democracy has left us far more vulnerable to this kind of theft than we would otherwise be. It was a key part to breaking the settlement, ensuring, for instance, that councils would not be able - not have the power - to provide housing for people any more.


Thanks for confirming. That's pretty much how I understand the historic context. I'm not sure how it worked democratically, but what I understand from my parents is that the councils had far more power across the board to protect communites in the days before thatcher.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

I'd love to know who on this thread benefits from astronomical property prices and (going back to the "real world" vs Sixth former on parents handouts thing) who's in for a massive inheritance divvy out when their parents cop it, because they bought into the thatcherite home ownership thing.
I can understand the fairly relaxed tone of some on here "that's capitalism, suck it up" etc, if you're sitting on property now you must be grinning like a fucking cheshire cat, while passing the odd criticism of capitalism and a half hearted belief in the abolition of capitalism (just because it's groovy) but deep down you know it aint gunna happen.

Me, my parents still live in a SE London council house. My dads an ex-docker, union man and self confessed communist. They didn't buy the house in the early 80's when offered for 60k, partly conscientiously, partly because they couldn't afford to. It'd be worth half a million on today's market. I'd never be able to afford that and frankly that figure scares the shit out me as I can't imagine what the going prices are when my kids move out.

I've never had the luxury of a helping hand up the property ladder. The most I'm going to inherit is half the value of a clapped out vauxhaul astra, a flatscereen tv and some electrical appliances.

Bitter about astronomical rents in London?.. just a bit!
Exploitative? No! It's not in my blood!


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 29, 2015)

No one else on this thread are possibly working class or of a working class background, forced out of the housing market by the ridiculous situation that exists, or don't have the benefit of nice inheritances or trust funds. Oh no. Only you and batboy have such an experience and we need you to tell us like it is.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> No one else on this thread are possibly working class or of a working class background, forced out of the housing market by the ridiculous situation that exists, or don't have the benefit of nice inheritances or trust funds. Oh no. Only you and batboy have such an experience and we need you to tell us like it is.


Why the confrontational tone?...

just saying I'd like to know that's all. I think it'd put a lot of the comments into a clearer context

so come on then - tell us how much your house is worth.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Like I say, I'm not even sure if it's a fact it was her 80s jaunts that changed it or if it ever existed.
> 
> What's that got to do with it?



Really?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> Really?


??


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> ??



I'm querying as to why you think economic history is irrelevant.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I'd love to know who on this thread benefits from astronomical property prices and (going back to the "real world" vs Sixth former on parents handouts thing) who's in for a massive inheritance divvy out when their parents cop it, because they bought into the thatcherite home ownership thing.
> I can understand the fairly relaxed tone of some on here "that's capitalism, suck it up" etc, if you're sitting on property now you must be grinning like a fucking cheshire cat, while passing the odd criticism of capitalism and a half hearted belief in the abolition of capitalism (just because it's groovy) but deep down you know it aint gunna happen.
> 
> Me, my parents still live in a SE London council house. My dads an ex-docker, union man and self confessed communist. They didn't buy the house in the early 80's when offered for 60k, partly conscientiously, partly because they couldn't afford to. It'd be worth half a million on today's market. I'd never be able to afford that and frankly that figure scares the shit out me as I can't imagine what the going prices are when my kids move out.
> ...


There are certain people on the thread defending the general process of capitalism while acting very butthurt about it when it comes to their own activities.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

ehh??? I don't. I think you may have misunderstood me. 
on the post you quoted I meant that my _economic history _wasn't up to scratch enough to confirm if what I was saying was entirely correct (about thatcher). I was kind of hoping you'd enlighten me instead if engaging with me like you playing a game of poker.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There are certain people on the thread defending the general process of capitalism while acting very butthurt about it when it comes to their own activities.


Do you mean me?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Do you mean me?


You're one of them, yes.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> ehh??? I don't. I think you may have misunderstood me.
> on the post you quoted I meant that my _economic history _wasn't up to scratch enough to confirm if what I was saying was entirely correct (about thatcher). I was kind of hoping you'd enlighten me instead if engaging with me like you playing a game of poker.



Tbh it's hard to tell your sincerity given your behaviour on this thread.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> Tbh it's hard to tell your sincerity given your behaviour on this thread.


Yeah sure... I'm exploiting you all.. I'm a capitalist... obvious init.
Cherio


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Yeah sure... I'm exploiting you all.. I'm a capitalist... obvious init.
> Cherio


auf wiedersehen pet


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You're one of them, yes.


There's a difference between "defending the general process of capitalism" and rationally defending being part of it. We're all part of it. It's virtually an occupational necessity in this day and age. I'm sick of a lot of aspects of capitalism, hence the discussion on regulations on certain parts of it. I really think that the property market (land ownership) shouldn't be allowed to be treated as a capitalist commodity. Just my opinion.
What's your view on that?
Do you think fucking off small businesses will help?
Do you own property in London?


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Why the confrontational tone?…



Coz it's a well worn line of argument to do the "I'm more working class than you" or "bet you've you got a big trust fund/rich parents/etc" to anyone who challenges capitalism or those that benefit from it.



pocketscience said:


> so come on then - tell us how much your house is worth.



£95k - 2 bed flat if you really must know. Luckily I will inherit my parents place when they die as an only child - they've got a £150k 2 bed house. I don't have any savings or other inheritance. Parents have enough for their retirement/old age.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> There's a difference between "defending the general process of capitalism" and rationally defending being part of it. We're all part of it. It's virtually an occupational necessity in this day and age. I'm sick of a lot of aspects of capitalism, hence the discussion on regulations on certain parts of it. I really think that the property market (land ownership) shouldn't be allowed to be treated as a capitalist commodity. Just my opinion.
> What's your view on that?
> Do you own property in London?


You _are_ defending the general process of capitalism, at least in the sense of using some pretty hackneyed (ahem) criticisms against anyone who expresses an opposition to it. Very few people of any stripe would deny that we live in a capitalist society and don't have a choice except to participate in it. That's the _problem_.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Mar 29, 2015)

Batboy said:


> l;
> 
> 
> 
> Define Working Class?



I don't need to. You and pocketscience are the mystics here.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You _are_ defending the general process of capitalism, at least in the sense of using some pretty hackneyed (ahem) criticisms against anyone who expresses an opposition to it. Very few people of any stripe would deny that we live in a capitalist society and don't have a choice except to participate in it. That's the _problem_.


Like I said, I have my criticisms of capitalism too. I've made one particular case clear here and provided political and legislative suggestion for solutions.
Others accused me of being exploitative because I run a company. They dream of the abolition of capitalism while admitting never giving a thought as to how it should be achieved and what it should be replaced with. I suspect they're either lazy, or that capitalism's actually doing alight for them.
Realistically, I think the only (peaceful) option we have is through incremental/ bottom up/ organic changes.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Like I said, I have my criticisms of capitalism too.



No you don't. Stop mystifying.

Be slick, incisive and rigorously logical. Don't strawman with abstract unquantifiable concepts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Others accused me of being exploitative because I run a company. They dream of the abolition of capitalism while admitting never giving a thought as to how it should be achieved and what it should be replaced with.


Who has said this? If you think there are not _a lot_ of people on urban who both think about how to change things and what to change things to, I'd suggest you haven't been reading the right threads.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Coz it's a well worn line of argument to do the "I'm more working class than you" or "bet you've you got a big trust fund/rich parents/etc" to anyone who challenges capitalism or those that benefit from it.


Not my intention, sorry, Although I have met a lot of the trust fund crew on my travels and to be honest, they do make me sick.



stethoscope said:


> £95k - 2 bed flat if you really must know. Luckily I will inherit my parents place when they die as an only child - they've got a £150k 2 bed house. I don't have any savings or other inheritance. Parents have enough for their retirement/old age.


Good for you


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2015)

The trust fund crew? 

Worst band name ever.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Like I said, I have my criticisms of capitalism too. I've made one particular case clear here and provided political and legislative suggestion for solutions.
> Others accused me of being exploitative because I run a company. They dream of the abolition of capitalism while admitting never giving a thought as to how it should be achieved and what it should be replaced with. I suspect they're either lazy, or that capitalism's actually doing alight for them.
> Realistically, I think the only (peaceful) option we have is through incremental/ bottom up/ organic changes.


You're criticism(s) of capitalism appear restricted to those processes that impact upon the profitability of the enterprise that you own.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Good for you



I say luckily, all depends on their future health - if they had to go into care homes then their place would most likely have to be sold to pay for such things - another shocking situation is the increasing lack of council care and the cost of privately run care homes  Though as they've only just retired so won't appreciate me talking of such things just yet


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Yeah sure... I'm exploiting you all.. I'm a capitalist... obvious init.
> Cherio



No, it's your painting of anyone with a different point of view as a cosseted student with no life experience. It's arrogant, smug, insulting and way off the mark.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Who has said this?


Lo Siento here on the "all wage labour is exploitation" / utopian dreamer trip
Brogdale here again trying to entrap me on the exploitation thing 



littlebabyjesus said:


> If you think there are not _a lot_ of people on urban who both think about how to change things and what to change things to, I'd suggest you haven't been reading the right threads.


I know there are. Unfortunately, I don't have he time to follow all the fragmented discussions obviously. Seems like some people can afford to spend there entire life on here discussing it


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> I say luckily, all depends on their future health - if they had to go into care homes then their place would most likely have to be sold to pay for such things - another shocking situation is the increasing lack of council care and the cost of privately run care homes  Though as they've only just retired so won't appreciate me talking of such things just yet


Tell me about it. My dad's well ripe for a care home but me and my brother cant afford it... and no, this aint another sob story.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I know there are. Unfortunately, I don't have he time to follow all the fragmented discussions obviously. Seems like some people can afford to spend there entire life on here discussing it


hmmm. A passive-aggressive dig. 

Follow as much or as little as you like, but cut out the crass generalisations.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Lo Siento here on the "all wage labour is exploitation" / utopian dreamer trip
> Brogdale here again trying to entrap me on the exploitation thing
> 
> 
> I know there are. Unfortunately, I don't have he time to follow all the fragmented discussions obviously. Seems like some people can afford to spend there entire life on here discussing it


Entrap? Get over yerself...you're the one who painted yourself into the corner of the self-proclaimed non-exploitative capitalist.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> No, it's your painting of anyone with a different point of view as a cosseted student with no life experience. It's arrogant, smug, insulting and way off the mark.


Yet their painting of anyone who runs a business as exploitative is fine???


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I'd love to know who on this thread benefits from astronomical property prices and (going back to the "real world" vs Sixth former on parents handouts thing) who's in for a massive inheritance divvy out when their parents cop it, because they bought into the thatcherite home ownership thing.
> I can understand the fairly relaxed tone of some on here "that's capitalism, suck it up" etc, if you're sitting on property now you must be grinning like a fucking cheshire cat, while passing the odd criticism of capitalism and a half hearted belief in the abolition of capitalism (just because it's groovy) but deep down you know it aint gunna happen.
> 
> Me, my parents still live in a SE London council house. My dads an ex-docker, union man and self confessed communist. They didn't buy the house in the early 80's when offered for 60k, partly conscientiously, partly because they couldn't afford to. It'd be worth half a million on today's market. I'd never be able to afford that and frankly that figure scares the shit out me as I can't imagine what the going prices are when my kids move out.
> ...



This truly is ridiculous. You think that the reason we're arguing _against_ Capital, is because we're sitting pretty and in line to gain from it. You, on the other hand, appear to be arguing _in favour_ of it, because you're frozen out of the housing market.

Sorry, but,


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> hmmm. A passive-aggressive dig.
> 
> Follow as much or as little as you like, but cut out the crass generalisations.


Jesus fucking christ.. .no dig. It's just that there's reams of stuff going on here. I have a family. My other half has been giving me non stop grief today because I've been on here   If anything I envy them, not digging them out


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Yet their painting of anyone who runs a business as exploitative is fine???



It's not "painting". It's an economic fact. It's not personal, stop taking it as such. It's a systemic criticism.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

I've been on here quite a bit today because my sixth form college and cushy grant  job, which is 300 miles away from where I fucking live, demands I work one saturday in four so I'm not at home and at a loose end.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> This truly is ridiculous. You think that the reason we're arguing _against_ Capital, is because we're sitting pretty and in line to gain from it.


No. But I don't doubt some are going to gain from it _yet _criticise it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> No. But I don't doubt some are going to gain from it _yet _criticise it.



Ah, the old _Don't criticise if you have a nice house / will get inheritance / get paid well _argument.

Do you think I wouldn't swap any of those to not have my life ruled by Capital?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> No. But I don't doubt some are going to gain from it _yet _criticise it.


So the right to criticise capital is restricted to those that (somehow) live outside capitalism?

Do you think before you post?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> It's not "painting". It's an economic fact. It's not personal, stop taking it as such. It's a systemic criticism.


maybe it's a semantics thing? This is what google throws up:

making use of a situation or treating others unfairly in order to gain an advantage or benefit.
"an exploitative form of labour"
I don't see myself as unfairly treating anything and I take offence with anyone who suggests I do.
They even mention as an example "exploitative form of labour" - suggesting some forms of labour aren't exploitative.
Please enlighten me if I'm misunderstanding


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2015)

Ah, google said so.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

Profit can only occur through exploitation. And that doesn't change even if the company makes a loss.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Profit can only occur through exploitation. And that doesn't change even if the company makes a loss.


It's back to the stone age with us then. That'll work out well.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> It's back to the stone age with us then. That'll work out well.



Technological advances can only exist if profit does. Care to explain why?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

I wonder if Capitalism existed during the discovery of the wheel, and how the world might look today if private enterprise hadn't made that discovery.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 29, 2015)

*eats bark*


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Technological advances can only exist if profit does. Care to explain why?


because every technological advancement has been achieved by expoiting something


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> because every technological advancement has been achieved by expoiting something



Such as the wheel?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> because every technological advancement has been achieved by expoiting something


exploiting some_thing_? 

You're not speaking the same language as others on here, tbf. You'd probably benefit from googling a bit about Marx.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

Pocket science is happy he's frozen out of the propert market because it means technology advances.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> maybe it's a semantics thing? This is what google throws up:
> 
> making use of a situation or treating others unfairly in order to gain an advantage or benefit.
> "an exploitative form of labour"
> ...



Didn't you read what I said? It's not personal. 

Where does profit come from in commodity production?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Such as the wheel?


Which material is it made of?
which tools you using and which materiel are they made of?
Don't want to be exploiting that forest for wood do we


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> exploiting some_thing_?
> 
> You're not speaking the same language as others on here, tbf. You'd probably benefit from googling a bit about Marx.


Thanks for the tip. My knowledge of Marx is a bit short I admit.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Which material is it made of?
> which tools you using and which materiel are they made of?
> Don't want to be exploiting that forest for wood do we



Shame you're so time-poor; you could have spent a few years in the British Library and worked all this up into a tome.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Which material is it made of?
> which tools you using and which materiel are they made of?
> Don't want to be exploiting that forest for wood do we



This is terrible stuff. Is it you who is at college?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> Didn't you read what I said? It's not personal.
> 
> Where does profit come from in commodity production?


*presses eyebrows together and scratches chin*
Which form of commodity production do you mean? Investor Usage, Marxist Usage or statistical

(OK,OK I got that from wiki -  I don't even know what commodity production is
be back to you on that one in a week or so when I've been through the article)


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> *presses eyebrows together and scratches chin*
> Which form of commodity production do you mean? Investor Usage, Marxist Usage or statistical
> 
> (OK,OK I got that from wiki -  I don't even know what commodity production is
> be back to you on that one in a week or so when I've been through the article)


Isn't it time for you entrepreneurs to get to bed? After all...it's the working week in 10 minutes.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> This is terrible stuff. Is it you who is at college?


College? Too busy exploiting to go back there.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> College? Too busy exploiting to go back there.



What attracted you to urban?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 29, 2015)

I'll just leave this here before going to bed.
It's an english version  I mentioned up thread explaining the new rent cap legislation for congested areas in Germany.
http://www.dw.de/merkels-cabinet-approves-brake-on-rent-prices/a-17968207


----------



## maomao (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Which material is it made of?
> which tools you using and which materiel are they made of?
> Don't want to be exploiting that forest for wood do we


what the fuck? like Batboy you don't have a fucking clue what people who object to capitalism _actually_ object to and can't be bothered to find out but because you personally benefit from it (or have done so far) you've constructed a position for them that you can easily dismiss. You're coming across like a fool.

Capitalism does not mean 'exchanging goods and services for money'. It doesn't even mean competition or free markets, both of which can exist without capitalism and vice versa.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> What attracted you to urban?


I joined in 2001 when I was squatting & travelling and only used internet cafes now and again. I lurked mostly to keep in touch with south london squatt & party news. Forgot username or lost the password and dropped off for a couple of years. Came back in 2006 when I finally got my very own shiny internet.
Also music /football/ lots of things actually


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> what the fuck? like Batboy you don't have a fucking clue what people who object to capitalism _actually_ object to and can't be bothered to find out but because you personally benefit from it (or have done so far) you've constructed a position for them that you can easily dismiss. You're coming across like a fool.
> Capitalism does not mean 'exchanging goods and services for money'. It doesn't even mean competition or free markets, both of which can exist without capitalism and vice versa.


Calm down. I'm fucking broke with a family to feed mate .
Seriously, when I hear 90K here, 150k there from property... these are like telephone numbers to me.
You seem to think that everyone who runs a business is minted


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2015)

Sell all of those mobile phones that Batboy reckons you've got.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2015)

jew blaming and a sterling grasp of economic theory. This thread has it all.


----------



## maomao (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Calm down. I'm fucking broke with a family to feed mate .
> Seriously, when I hear 90K here, 150k there from property... these are like telephone numbers to me.
> You seem to think that everyone who runs a business is minted


I don't actually but you're more invested in the system than the average worker.


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> jew blaming and a sterling grasp of economic theory. This thread has it all.


Don't forget the jesus bits


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> I don't actually but you're more invested in the system than the average worker.


and not as smart as the average bear, right?


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Calm down. I'm fucking broke with a family to feed mate .
> Seriously, when I hear 90K here, 150k there from property... these are like telephone numbers to me.
> You seem to think that everyone who runs a business is minted



I like the way you've turned it all around to make it sound like I'm the rich one!*  My flat's mortgaged of course - you don't actually think I own it outright? You asked 'how much is my flat worth', not 'how much am I worth'?


* Not grumbling obviously, I'm reasonably fortunate compared to many. Though it does feel like you're a little pissed that I haven't got a 300k 'ackney apartment so you can beat me with that


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2015)

This is somewhat surreal that a business owner is playing prolier than thou.


----------



## maomao (Mar 30, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> This is somewhat surreal that a business owner is playing prolier than thou.


Standard. My last boss used to go on about how he'd made it after starting life on a council estate and there's always been just enough cunts like Alan Sugar around to give the impression of social mobility.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2015)

loads of people who own their own business could barely survive without tax credits, and are marginally better off than they would be on benefits - that's one of capitalism's little tricks and one that most people on here are aware of.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> loads of people who own their own business could barely survive without tax credits, and are marginally better off than they would be on benefits - that's one of capitalism's little tricks and one that most people on here are aware of.



That's true of my gf actually; although she's more self employed rather than a business 'owner'.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> I like the way you've turned it all around to make it sound like I'm the rich one!*  My flat's mortgaged of course - you don't actually think I own it outright? You asked 'how much is my flat worth', not 'how much am I worth'?
> 
> 
> * Not grumbling obviously, I'm reasonably fortunate compared to many. Though it does feel like you're a little pissed that I haven't got a 300k 'ackney apartment so you can beat me with that


That wasn't the intention, sorry. Just usd those figures as an example. To be fair those amounts are usually 5 times higher. They're the numers that freak me out.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> This is somewhat surreal that a business owner is playing prolier than thou.


Seriously, thems the facts. Never had anywhere near enough for a deposit to even cosider entering a bank for a mortgage. Is that really unfathomable?
Tbf its was always a personal choice but never the less, the older I become and the higher the prices of property go (disproportionate to wages, inflation and cost of living) the more it makes me realise how fortunate those are who do own from before bubble prices or will at some point inherite.
Btw I dont consider myself poor (or a prole as you put it).


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 30, 2015)

for information the freeholder is Hatton Gardens Properties Limited one of the directors being David Pearl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pearl_(businessman)


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2015)

Pocketscience, you seem confused between critiques of a system and criticism of an individual.  We all have to work within the system as it exists so long as it continues to exist.  We all make the best of the hands we are dealt.  That doesn't mean we can't see it for what it is and wish for an end to the very structures that are _currently_ propping us up.  It doesn't mean that no alternatives exist.

Capitalism -- the clue is in the name.  It starts with capital.  Capital is resource, something available to do something with.  It can be financial capital (including physical assets) but it can also be labour capital, intellectual capital or social capital. 

Capitalism focuses on individuals and conglomerations accumulating a pool of such capital and then looking to exploit it.  This is not a value-laden term.  It just means that when you finish your process, you have more of it than when you started.  The exploitation is what creates the profit.  You can exploit your financial capital or you can exploit one of your other types of capital.  If you are exploiting your labour capital then by definition, it is the labour of others that is generating your profit.

Capitalism is then all about the structures and framework that can be created and propagated in the support of this capital exploitation.  This is what uniquely defines it.  It requires significant infrastructure and social sophistication to manage these processes.  The ancient Egyptians, mentioned by Batboy, did not operate such a system, they simply did not have the level of sophistication required to do so.  They did not have the legal framework, they did not have the corporate governance framework, they did not have the concepts required to protect, organise, invest and exploit capital.

Capitalism as we know it operates under free markets and consumerism.  These are not necessary for capitalism to exist, however, and capitalism is not necessary for free markets or consumerism to exist.  In those who have never made the effort or had the opportunity to study or read about these things, the ideas have become inextricably linked, because they comprise the underlying assumptions that pervade us.  But it is worth spending that effort and giving yourself that opportunity, because there is a lot more out there than you realise.  It's not those that you are talking to that are the sixth-formers, metaphorically speaking.  It's you.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Lol, listen to you...
> The one who self admittedly lives in an economic utopian fantasy world, who's only suggestion on how to actually achieve that utopia is to endorse a plan of "small businesses can fuck off" (because they're patently exploitative). When confronted with what to do with those now out of work working class people impacted by your masterplan, you offer "to sit down and talk to them"
> 
> When it come's down to blown minds, you're obviously speeking from experience.
> ...



If you _really _want to go back to the discussion about small businesses (and the future of the world!) then we can. But I thought we'd moved on to talking about human nature, and it's quite difficult to have a discussion with someone who has a tantrum and changes topic every time they feel like they've been made to look stupid.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Key word  "endorse"
> Here's the original post of mine he decided to challenge.
> My conclusion is that he endorses C66's suggestion that small businesses can fuck off... otherwise I have no idea why he bothered to reply to me with such skewed opinion that small businesses are more likely to exploit employees (a topic for another thread I suspect)



I've not offered any such endorsement, I've contributed information to the discussion. Far from "a skewed opinion" It's actually pretty well-known information if you know much about the history of workers' rights and economic development. So well-known in fact that small business representatives actually use it in their arguments against having statutory obligations towards their workers like a minimum wage.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Key word  "endorse"
> Here's the original post of mine he decided to challenge.
> My conclusion is that he endorses C66's suggestion that small businesses can fuck off... otherwise I have no idea why he bothered to reply to me with such skewed opinion that small businesses are more likely to exploit employees (a topic for another thread I suspect)



What i saw was Lo Siento offer a coherent reasoned _evidenced _defence of a claim that small businesses are often more exploitative than larger ones due to various structural factors when questioned on this _by you_ - and you responding in a ludicrous OTT manner that openly suggested that his making this case was the same as batboy's crude nonsense and then spending two days rambling around anything that seemed to pop up in your head throwing out abuse and smears as you went. And even then Lo Siento responded time and time again in the same coherent manner.

Truly astonishing thread.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2015)

A key feature of capitalism is that crucial to its existence is the need to generate a return on capital.  If this doesn't happen, the whole basis for it is undermined.

It's worth reflecting on that, however, from a point of view of resource scarcity and environmental concerns.  What are the consequences of requiring unrestricted compound returns on an open-ended basis?  How long can that be sustained?  10 years?  100 years?  1000 years?  

It's also worth reflecting on what it requires from those living in it.  As we get more efficient, that efficiency is turned into profit that feeds the return on capital.  Why is this for our benefit?  What would happen if the efficiency was instead used to simplify our lives?

What about a market economy that doesn't require this return?  Where no profit is necessary?  What would that look like?  Would it still require all citizens to be employed for a typical 40 hours a week?  Why?  How much of that 40 hours is used to create the profit that feeds the machine?

The assumptions that are made without really understanding the nature of the systems under discussion is that a different system would have the same requirements and operate with the same sets of principles.  This is a mistake.  There is nothing inherent to existence that requires a small elite to own an ever increasing amount of capital.  Take this away and a lot of assumptions about the way the world has to work get shattered.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 30, 2015)

i worked for a bloke, lovely feller and clever. in his jokes, manner and demeanor he was like tom in the good life. terrific engineer, shit businessman. went bust owing me four and a half grand i never got. small businesses are always the shittest but they're all shit in different ways.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Mar 30, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Capitalism is then all about the structures and framework that can be created and propagated in the support of this capital exploitation.  This is what uniquely defines it.  It requires significant infrastructure and social sophistication to manage these processes.  The ancient Egyptians, mentioned by Batboy, did not operate such a system, they simply did not have the level of sophistication required to do so.  They did not have the legal framework, they did not have the corporate governance framework, they did not have the concepts required to protect, organise, invest and exploit capital.



Ancient Egypt did arguably operate under a crude, monarchistic form of capitalism:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/capitalism.aspx



> In ancient Egypt, for example, there existed a monarchic state capitalism, with the surplus above subsistence put at the disposal of the priestly and military bureaucracy in the service of the Pharaoh.



You had a ruling class owning pretty much all means of productions,  temples functioning as banks, even to the extent of underwriting trade ventures in foreign lands, you had mass exploitation of labour through slavery...it's very much capitalistic in nature.

Please do not take the above to be in support of any opinions put forward by other posters, it's just an observation.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2015)

Whatever system it was: human history doesn't start with the Pharoes. This discussion stemmed from the claim that 'capitalism has been around since year dot.'


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Mar 30, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Whatever system it was: human history doesn't start with the Pharoes. This discussion stend from the claim that 'capitalism has been around since year dot.'



"Please do not take the above to be in support of any opinions put forward by other posters, it's just an observation."


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2015)

That's what I get for straying outside my comfort zone and talking about ancient Egypt.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2015)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Ancient Egypt did arguably operate under a crude, monarchistic form of capitalism:
> 
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/capitalism.aspx
> 
> ...


Without surplus value production being the main organising concept around which society is structured it's just not capitalism. It's just a system designed to take surplus production by force. The same way that money and wage labour existed but in isolated pockets rather than as socially determinant operations. Capitalism is organised around the production of commodities (things containing surplus value) for sale rather than use.

That article is appalling.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2015)

Lemon Eddy said:


> "Please do not take the above to be in support of any opinions put forward by other posters, it's just an observation."



I didn't suggest you were supporting anyone's opinions.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2015)

that 'unauthorized biography of money' was interesting for this point, the existence of money as-social-technology predating capitalism by a long long way


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Mar 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Without surplus value production being the main organising concept around which society is organised it's just not capitalism.



My understanding of Marx' surplus value is rudimentary, at best, but I would have thought that the slave owners were a very good example of a 3rd party retaining a value created by workers that far exceeds their cost?


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Mar 30, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I didn't suggest you were supporting anyone's opinions.



You may understand why I'm very keen to stress that point in this thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2015)

Lemon Eddy said:


> My understanding of Marx' surplus value is rudimentary, at best, but I would have thought that the slave owners were a very good example of a 3rd party retaining a value created by workers that far exceeds their cost?


It's hardly wage labour undertook by a free (doubly free - i.e free to sign contracts and freed from ownership of means of subsistence) worker - capitalism requires that (and all that this entails - a prior series of enclosures and dispossession, a legal structure to support this, a substantive economic imperative to do so etc) brought into work by the _the dull compulsion of economic relations _rather than extra-economic force . I'd be really surprised if that piece were accepted for publication anywhere today - on this specific question anyway.


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2015)

Interestingly, Egypt had its own version of unsustainable economic expansion. Theoretically, the dead were supposed to receive regular offerings of food, so that with each passing generation more and more land was required to grow the food, and more priests employed to undertake the necessary rituals.


----------



## maomao (Mar 30, 2015)

Santino said:


> Interestingly, Egypt had its own version of unsustainable economic expansion. Theoretically, the dead were supposed to receive regular offerings of food, so that with each passing generation more and more land was required to grow the food, and more priests employed to undertake the necessary rituals.


In Chinese ancestor worship they have a cut-off (I think 10 or 12 generations) so that this doesn't happen.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Pocketscience, you seem confused between critiques of a system and criticism of an individual.  We all have to work within the system as it exists so long as it continues to exist.  We all make the best of the hands we are dealt.  That doesn't mean we can't see it for what it is and wish for an end to the very structures that are _currently_ propping us up.  It doesn't mean that no alternatives exist.
> 
> Capitalism -- the clue is in the name.  It starts with capital.  Capital is resource, something available to do something with.  It can be financial capital (including physical assets) but it can also be labour capital, intellectual capital or social capital.
> 
> ...


Thank you. The way you descibe exploitation is on a theoretical level. Thats vastly different to how Lo Siento was portaying it (i.e a practical level) which was the initial thing that got my back up:  small business are more likely to be exploitative than large. That I contest.

My main gripe with is,  i started a business to get away from the exploitation of working for large firms (mostly agencies in my profession/ field). Our very business model is based shared revenues (ex tax, contingency fund & expenses - rent). So, if we generate enough business (that's a big if at the moment) then all "profits" are ploughed back into saleries. Everythings made transparent and partners, employees and clients are all completely down with the concept. For all intent and purpose its a not for profit/ collective venture.
Thing is, I only see small companies using this model ( from my experience its spreading).
On the contrary, the big firs qho we compete with for business are laying off skilled workers left right and center, whilst taking the odd highly paif MBA on the books as a contract manager, all to negotiate hundreds of thpusands of man hours to armies of Indians who earn peanuts.
Meanwhile their share prices are rocketing, enbvling them to pay for overpriced properties in (say) Hackney

So just to be clear. I'm not contesting that there isn't exploitation in capitalism. It's just that from my experience small businesses are much more likely to change the traditional or practicle concepts of exploitation.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> In Chinese ancestor worship they have a cut-off (I think 10 or 12 generations) so that this doesn't happen.


12 generations still finds you needing to provide food for 4,096 people plus yourself each mealtime!


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Thank you. The way you descibe exploitation is on a theoretical level. Thats vastly different to how Lo Siento was portaying it (i.e a practical level) which was the initial thing that got my back up:  small business are more likely to be exploitative than large. That I contest.
> 
> My main gripe with is,  i started a business to get away from the exploitation of working for large firms (mostly agencies in my profession/ field). Our very business model is based shared revenues (ex tax, contingency fund & expenses - rent). So, if we generate enough business (that's a big if at the moment) then all "profits" are ploughed back into saleries. Everythings made transparent and partners, employees and clients are all completely down with the concept. For all intent and purpose its a not for profit/ collective venture.
> Thing is, I only see small companies using this model ( from my experience its spreading).
> ...


 What proportion of small businesses do you think operate as collective ventures?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2015)

kabbes said:


> 12 generations still finds you needing to provide food for 4,096 people plus yourself each mealtime!


I don't think giving a food offering to anscestors really means they get a big plateful at every meal. That would be madness


----------



## maomao (Mar 30, 2015)

kabbes said:


> 12 generations still finds you needing to provide food for 4,096 people plus yourself each mealtime!


There's very little on the internet about this that I can find right now so I'm working off a fifteen year old half-remembered lecture here but you'd only be interred in one ancestral hall after death so you wouldn't have ALL your ancestors in there, just one line, plus there'd be a whole group of people worshipping at one hall so no individual would be expected to cough up 4,096 bowls of noodles on a daily basis anyway.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2015)

I'm on a fast today so right now I'm feeling like I could eat 4,096 bowls of tasty, tasty noodles.


----------



## maomao (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> small business are more likely to be exploitative than large. That I contest.


In my experience and anecdotally, the smaller the business the more likely the boss is going to expect you to put yourself out for the company, do unpaid overtime, delay pay raises on the basis of business not being that great this month etc.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

Santino said:


> What proportion of small businesses do you think operate as collective ventures?


No idea. Certainly growing round my parts. But very small.

Eta, one things for sure, your going to see a lot less of it so long as the rent is too damn high.


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I'm on a fast today so right now I'm feeling like I could eat 4,096 bowls of tasty, tasty noodles.


 You'd probably feel full after the first 1000 or so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> The business runs mostly as a (skilled) freelancer collective, all paid at industry agreed tariff rates. Costs are made transparent to customers who are free to take it or leave it.
> 
> For all the years of dealing with colleagues and customers you're the first person to acuse me of being exploitative.
> Quite an achievement for someone who doesn't know who I am or what I do.



You really are quite thin-skinned, aren't you?


----------



## maomao (Mar 30, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I'm on a fast today so right now I'm feeling like I could eat 4,096 bowls of tasty, tasty noodles.


This 1925 article suggests maximum 5 generations and I'm pretty sure no ancestral tablets for the ladies (though I think brothers/uncles would be included) so I think you'd be lucky to squeeze 100 or so bowls of noodles out of it.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> In my experience and anecdotally, the smaller the business the more likely the boss is going to expect you to put yourself out for the company, do unpaid overtime, delay pay raises on the basis of business not being that great this month etc.


Totally the other way round in my experience. But then again they were agencies (or glorified agencies). They had me travelling all over europe at one point expecting dedlines to be closed wherw it was only possible to work till you dropped. No renumeration for it, just the hope of recognition.
Project work generally sucks like that though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> hasnt this been the great failure of the far, extreme left since the soviet union fell apart? namely that for all the screaming about capitalism, there is nothing, NOTHING that is put forth of any credibility to replace it.
> 
> if there is...enlighten me...



You could actually make things better for many people just by switching modes of capitalism from neoliberalism to something more social-democratic - less "let's make money" and more "let's try to make sure there's a decent safety net".


----------



## CNT36 (Mar 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> In my experience and anecdotally, the smaller the business the more likely the boss is going to expect you to put yourself out for the company, do unpaid overtime, delay pay raises on the basis of business not being that great this month etc.


In my experience and anecdotally you are right. On the other hand in the better times people can get pay rises and if it is slow time off without docking or even in relatively busy time for family issues for example holding a adult daughters hand at the dentist. If you've been in the company for a while and actually work side by side with the owners (in small businesses where they need to get involved in the shitty jobs) rather than deal only with a HR department and immediate supervisors with fucking aspirations you may get increased job security. Them not wanting to sack someone they've worked with for a while and actually having to do it themselves. Obviously these same personal relationships can work against people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> In my experience and anecdotally you are right. On the other hand in the better times people can get pay rises and if it is slow time off without docking or even in relatively busy time for family issues for example holding a adult daughters hand at the dentist. If you've been in the company for a while and actually work side by side with the owners (in small businesses where they need to get involved in the shitty jobs) rather than deal only with a HR department and immediate supervisors with fucking aspirations you may get increased job security. Them not wanting to sack someone they've worked with for a while and actually having to do it themselves. Obviously these same personal relationships can work against people.


Yep, I think this sums up the pros and cons very well. You can get a more flexible, human system, but at the same time, there are fewer guarantees and you can be fucked over. Company going bust with no money for redundancy is another way you can be fucked over.


----------



## maomao (Mar 30, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> In my experience and anecdotally you are right. On the other hand in the better times people can get pay rises and if it is slow time off without docking or even in relatively busy time for family issues for example holding a adult daughters hand at the dentist. If you've been in the company for a while and actually work side by side with the owners (in small businesses where they need to get involved in the shitty jobs) rather than deal only with a HR department and immediate supervisors with fucking aspirations you may get increased job security. Them not wanting to sack someone they've worked with for a while and actually having to do it themselves. Obviously these same personal relationships can work against people.


That's pretty much my experience. I've always worked for smallish companies and my only time (four days, after a small company I worked for got bought out) in a proper big company suggested certain things were a lot easier. Take holidays when you want without having to organise your own cover, overtime dealt with efficiently and paid on time etc. Couldn't stay there because it was a shithole full of absolute pricks though.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You really are quite thin-skinned, aren't you?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2015)

The biggest problems IMpersonalE come when the small company is beginning to grow to mid-size, at about the 20 employee mark.  Those running it still expect the kind of personal commitment that comes with being part of a tiny enterprise.  But the stake has been diluted too much and the new employees aren't signing up to be entrepreneurs.  There tends to be a real disconnect at that point between the management structure and those on the front line.

But what is this, a fucking business lecture?  Fuck you, kabbes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2015)

Maggot said:


> That's irrelevant. If his employees have decent wages and conditions, he's not exploiting them.



You and Karl Marx are operating under different definitions of what "exploiting" means.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> If you _really _want to go back to the discussion about small businesses (and the future of the world!) then we can. But I thought we'd moved on to talking about human nature, and it's quite difficult to have a discussion with someone who has a tantrum and changes topic every time they feel like they've been made to look stupid.





Lo Siento. said:


> I've not offered any such endorsement, I've contributed information to the discussion. Far from "a skewed opinion" It's actually pretty well-known information if you know much about the history of workers' rights and economic development. So well-known in fact that small business representatives actually use it in their arguments against having statutory obligations towards their workers like a minimum wage.


Really, i'd love to draw a line under it. But firstly your graph fails to provide a metric for exploitation. Secondly most of those large companies are multi nationals and their oversees exploits arent represented. How does the exploitative value of say Apple, who we all know have a virtual army buckled down to conver belts in China, weigh up to the fella in the article, running a poxy little garage with maybe 10 workers on going rates and 2 trainees on minimal wages.
In your world Apple smells of roses and he's a cunt?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Really, i'd love to draw a line under it. But firstly your graph fails to provide a metric for exploitation. Secondly most of those large companies are multi nationals and their oversees exploits arent represented. How does the exploitative value of Apple, who have a virtual army buckled down to conver belts in China, weigh up to the fella in the article, running a poxy little garage with maybe 10 workers on going rates and 2 trainees on minimal wages.
> In your world Apple smells of roses and he's a cunt


You just outlined above how in your personal experience a large company differs from a small one didn't you?

Anyway, looks like it's back to the FREAK_OUT HOW DARE YOU!!!! astonishing stuff.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2015)

Batboy said:


> What are you banging on about?
> 
> Shiny things include gold and jewellery of which the ancient Egyptians, Romans and countless other groups of people before them traded upon, communism was light years away. The wages were worse then because you got paid fuck all.
> 
> Even Jesus was brought gifts that were revered. Capitalism in its old sense was based upon trading goods, Modern capitalism can be traced back to the 14th century through feudalism and land owners.



Obligatory "stupid Fugger" joke.

You're conflating primitive accumulation with local trade, and mistaking that for "capitalism in its old sense". Capitalism is the over-arching system of economics in place. The system wasn't over-arching in any shape or form (and even then only patchily) until the 17th to 18th century.


----------



## elbows (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Really, i'd love to draw a line under it. But firstly your graph fails to provide a metric for exploitation. Secondly most of those large companies are multi nationals and their oversees exploits arent represented. How does the exploitative value of say Apple, who we all know have a virtual army buckled down to conver belts in China, weigh up to the fella in the article, running a poxy little garage with maybe 10 workers on going rates and 2 trainees on minimal wages.
> In your world Apple smells of roses and he's a cunt?



Nobody here has presented a worldview where Apple come up smelling of roses.

Your talk of metrics is bogus in my opinion, because by their very definition small businesses do everything on a smaller scale than large ones. Thats no excuse, and does not really disguise the mechanisms or implications of exploitation.

Landlords and property developers may well be small companies, and are not going to be more fun to deal with than large ones.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2015)

Batboy said:


> ?..... where the fuck did the wasps come from ?



Bolivia. They're Bolivian arse wasps.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Really, i'd love to draw a line under it. But firstly your graph fails to provide a metric for exploitation. Secondly most of those large companies are multi nationals and their oversees exploits arent represented. How does the exploitative value of Apple, who have a virtual army buckled down to conver belts in China, weigh up to the fella in the article, running a poxy little garage with maybe 10 workers on going rates and 2 trainees on minimal wages.
> In your world Apple smells of roses and he's a cunt



You need to work on your reading comprehension. Throughout this discussion I've used the words "often" and "tendency" and talked about structural reasons for why what I've outlined is the case. I've not at any point even vaguely implied that _all _small businesses are more exploitative or that _all _large businesses are less exploitative. It's frankly bizarre that you've decided that I'm trying to claim as such.

Apple, of course, don't actually employ the people who manufacture their goods (much of which is done by another large manufacturer - Foxconn - whose employment practices are likely well above par for the regions where their manufacturing sites are located), just like your poxy little garage owner doesn't employ the people who makes the parts he installs and replaces (which, also might well be made in a sweatshop somewhere, perhaps a worse one than Foxconn). Both companies benefit from a whole load of other social processes that are a feature of modern capitalism, which are a whole other, very messy discussion. None of which makes it any less true that small businesses tend to be more exploitative than large ones for the reasons outlined. Indeed, that fact plays a substantial part in how large multi-nationals actually make their profits...

(None of this, of course, is an attempt to argue that Apple doesn't exploit people. In fact, since it's the most profitable company in the world, and all profits derive from exploitation, it does - cumulatively - the most exploitation of any company globally)


----------



## elbows (Mar 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bolivia. They're Bolivian arse wasps.



Are the wasps operating as a collective venture?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2015)

elbows said:


> Are the wasps operating as a collective venture?


its a hive, of course they are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> imo a broken democracy



Or rather, that our democracy isn't broken - it was never meant to function. This is why I bore people to death about us living in a pseudo-democracy. If we truly lived in a democracy, we'd have the power to change stuff, or at least have a system that gave us the tools to give ourselves the power to change stuff.
As it is, the electorate doesn't even have the power to enforce its wishes on its chosen representatives - we have a vote, but our choice is of a series of people toeing party lines, who are committed to their party first and foremost, and their constituents second.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its a hive, of course they are.


Absolute monarchy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Absolute monarchy.


a tyranny of the pheromones


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Lo Siento here on the "all wage labour is exploitation" / utopian dreamer trip
> Brogdale here again trying to entrap me on the exploitation thing
> 
> 
> I know there are. Unfortunately, I don't have he time to follow all the fragmented discussions obviously. Seems like some people can afford to spend there entire life on here discussing it



You appear to be taking the word "exploiting" as a personal judgement on your character. it isn't. It's the _sine qua non_ of "business" that relationships between parties (employers and employees, traders and customer) *DEPEND* on the fact of exploitation (that is, extracting value). Without those exploiting relationships, business can't exist, even in its' most primitive form as barter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> It's back to the stone age with us then. That'll work out well.



In *some* exploitative relationships, the exploitation is minimised (your co-op, for example). Outside of full communism it might be taken as the best that can be hoped for. if that's the case, then to arrive there,you still have to get past the current neoliberal capitalism, where exploitation is often - damagingly and dangerously - maximised without thought of consequences.


----------



## CNT36 (Mar 30, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Apple, of course, don't actually employ the people who manufacture their goods (much of which is done by another large manufacturer -* Foxconn - whose employment practices are likely well above par for the regions where their manufacturing sites are located*),



Frightening thought.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 30, 2015)

what's this thread about again ? I've got a bit lost


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2015)

marty21 said:


> what's this thread about again ? I've got a bit lost


I like it when it was about Ancient Egypt.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> You need to work on your reading comprehension. Throughout this discussion I've used the words "often" and "tendency" and talked about structural reasons for why what I've outlined is the case. I've not at any point even vaguely implied that _all _small businesses are more exploitative or that _all _large businesses are less exploitative. It's frankly bizarre that you've decided that I'm trying to claim as such.
> 
> Apple, of course, don't actually employ the people who manufacture their goods (much of which is done by another large manufacturer - Foxconn - whose employment practices are likely well above par for the regions where their manufacturing sites are located), just like your poxy little garage owner doesn't employ the people who makes the parts he installs and replaces (which, also might well be made in a sweatshop somewhere, perhaps a worse one than Foxconn).



Sorry, but I think you're totally wrong.
Apple defines it's supply chain when they choose Foxxcon to manufacture _their proprietary parts_. Apple parts are made by cheep labour basta!
Your correlation about Matey at the garage and the parts he installs and replaces being made by cheep labour is irrelevant. He has no choice where they're manufactured. They are probably manufactured in third world sweatshops but that decision has been defined by the Toyotas, Mercs & Fords of the world. Yes, the big companies.
Matey only provides the repair service. Your analogy about his business would only add up if, when someone in Hackney takes their car to him for repairs, he'd ship it to Calcutta and have someone repair it there and then ship it back. That of course would be ludicrous and doesn't happen.

You've been hood-winked. It's exactly what Apple want you to believe (and possibly the authors of that graph you used), that the exploitation in China isn't on their watch because they've created an arms-length supply chain. In theory they could buy Foxxcon outright with their spare change but of course they'd never do that. One reason they wouldn't do that is because they wouldn't have people like you promoting what wonderful employers they are (and getting away with it) on the internet.



Lo Siento. said:


> Both companies benefit from a whole load of other social processes that are a feature of modern capitalism, which are a whole other, very messy discussion.


What, like exploiting tax loop-holes as well?  The tax man loves going for the little ones. Makes his life easier... 




Lo Siento. said:


> (None of this, of course, is an attempt to argue that Apple doesn't exploit people. In fact, since it's the most profitable company in the world, and all profits derive from exploitation, it does - cumulatively - the most exploitation of any company globally)


THAT'S the bottom line. It's how the pyramid works. Large companies get large because they exploit more!


----------



## Belushi (Mar 30, 2015)

It's about who is responsible for driving garage owners out of Hackney marty21, so far the options are:

a) Hipsters
b) The Jews
c) Pharaoh
d) Capitalism


----------



## marty21 (Mar 30, 2015)

Belushi said:


> It's about who is responsible for driving garage owners out of Hackney marty21, so far the options are:
> 
> a) Hipsters
> b) The Jews
> ...


 excellent summary, my money is on the Pharoah, he took over my local, and they started serving decent ales and food, the bastards


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> It's exactly what Apple want you to believe (and possibly the authors of that graph you used), that the exploitation in China isn't on their watch because they've created an arms-length supply chain.


No one's saying that.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You appear to be taking the word "exploiting" as a personal judgement on your character. it isn't. It's the _sine qua non_ of "business" that relationships between parties (employers and employees, traders and customer) *DEPEND* on the fact of exploitation (that is, extracting value). Without those exploiting relationships, business can't exist, even in its' most primitive form as barter.


I don't think Lo Siento was using it in it's marxist (?) context in his comparison though. It's clear the exploitative he brought up and ,what has subsequently been discussed by others (maomao for one) was meaning the practical (unjust) context - like employers expecting unpaid overtime etc


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2015)

Did you know that the succession of Pharaohs wasn't based on primogeniture, but rather marrying the existing Pharoah's daughter?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> THAT'S the bottom line. It's how the pyramid works. Large companies get large because they exploit more!



Tell me, did they start large? What benefits does being large bring - if any? Are economies of scale and being able to dictate terms etc real? What disadvantages does being small bring when faced with larger competition benefiting from the above?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I don't think Lo Siento was using it in it's marxist (?) context in his comparison though. It's clear the exploitative he brought up and ,what has subsequently been discussed by others (maomao for one) was meaning the practical (unjust) context - like employers expecting unpaid overtime etc


Actually no, he also used it in the vernacular understanding that you did - in the sense of cutting corners,moral blackmail to do unpaid OT, upgrade skills on your own dollar etc rather than marxist rate of exploitation. And that you then went on to say was your own experience of big vs small companies. Astonishing stuff.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Tell me, did they start large? What benefits does being large bring - if any? Are economies of scale and being able to dictate terms etc real? What disadvantages does being small bring when faced with larger competition benefiting from the above?


I dunno, definitely sounds like a topic for someone on here to write a uni thesis about:
Ethical Business Models of Small Businesses and the Impact of Marxist and non Marxist Exploitation in a Globalised World

(but they should of course concentrate on getting their A-levels finished first )


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Actually no, he also used it in the vernacular understanding that you did - in the sense of cutting corners,moral blackmail to do unpaid OT, upgrade skills on your own dollar etc rather than marxist rate of exploitation. And that you then went on to say was your own experience of big vs small companies. Astonishing stuff.


Who do you mean "He"? Lo Siento or VP?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I dunno, definitely sounds like a topic for someone on here to write a uni thesis about:
> Ethical Business Models of Small Businesses and the Impact of Marxist and non Marxist Exploitation in a Globalised World
> 
> (but they should of course concentrate on getting their A-levels finished first )


And again with this passive-aggressive shite.

I can't help noting that the people who bang on on here about people wasting their time posting worthwhile stuff on the internet are themselves people who waste their time posting absolute drivel.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Who do you mean "He"? Lo Siento or VP?


Lo Siento.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Sorry, but I think you're totally wrong.
> Apple defines it's supply chain when they choose Foxxcon to manufacture _their proprietary parts_. Apple parts are made by cheep labour basta!
> Your correlation about Matey at the garage and the parts he installs and replaces being made by cheep labour is irrelevant. He has no choice where they're manufactured. They are probably manufactured in third world sweatshops but that decision has been defined by the Toyotas, Mercs & Fords of the world. Yes, the big companies.
> Matey only provides the repair service. Your analogy about his business would only add up if, when someone in Hackney takes their car to him for repairs, he'd ship it to Calcutta and have someone repair it there and then ship it back. That of course would be ludicrous and doesn't happen.
> ...



Look, it's difficult to conduct any sort of discussion when you aren't capable of very basic reading comprehension. Firstly, at no point have I made the case that small employers are any more or less moral than large employers. Morality doesn't come into it, capitalist companies (of all sizes) _taken as a group_ follow the imperatives of capitalism and look to maximise profit. For large companies and small companies this generally means finding the cheapest possible suppliers. Some firms, small and large, for a variety of reasons (from personal choice to alternative forms of profit-seeking), choose not to do this but that's the general trend. The garage owner and Apple are making the same choices for the same reasons. One is not more moral than the other. 



> THAT'S the bottom line. It's how the pyramid works. Large companies get large because they exploit more!



It's really A LOT more complex than that.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And again with this passive-aggressive shite.
> 
> I can't help noting that the people who bang on on here about people wasting their time posting worthwhile stuff on the internet are themselves people who waste their time posting absolute drivel.


Contrary to the active aggressive shit I've taken from some posters here, it was meant as a joke... to lighten things up like


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Lo Siento.


ah good, then I think we agree. That's how I understood it too (vernacular)


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Contrary to the active aggressive shit I've taken from some posters here, it was meant as a joke... to lighten things up like


yeh but why did you have to post shit up at all? why not post something useful or at the very least funny?


----------



## toblerone3 (Mar 30, 2015)

marty21 said:


> what's this thread about again ? I've got a bit lost



Its about Hackney garages


----------



## marty21 (Mar 30, 2015)

toblerone3 said:


> Its about Hackney garages


 I have one at the end of my hackney street


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2015)

marty21 said:


> I have one at the end of my hackney street


there's a famous one in bohemia place


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> ah good, then I think we agree. That's how I understood it too (vernacular)


Then stop a) demanding metrics b) screaming at him that he's wrong c) posting up that in your experience that he's correct - i'm not even going to bother with he apple shit. And he also tied the vernacular use to the 'marxist' one. Calm down.

It's simple really - each individual enterprise has a rate of exploitation. Total capital also has a rate of exploitation averaged across all these individual enterprises. On top of that there is the social wage - that's the stuff that Lo Siento also mentioned to you - that's worker protection etc and that's comes out of total capital - and imposed by the state. Smaller companies try to dodge this because a) they need to b) they are more likely to be able to get away with it.

So we have, on the one hand, smaller companies not benefiting in the first instance from stuff that larger companies can and on the second being better placed/compelled to avoid the costs that larger companies can take (largely due to the former). So this is why smaller companies are often more exploitative than larger companies.

Why this requires you going on a multi-day hissy fit though, i don't know.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Tell me, did they start large? What benefits does being large bring - if any? Are economies of scale and being able to dictate terms etc real?


Actually, just reading Lo Sientos reply above, I apologise for my flippant reply to these questions earlier.
_"did they start large":_ no, but it's clear Jobs wanted to get big a whatever moral cost (see kabbes post on passing 20 employees)
_"What benefits does being large bring": _If it's been a sound organic growth it bring bundles of cash (obviously). One obvious advantage of that that I can see (and to keep it on topic) is that they buy their property outright and don't rent. ROI in win-win.
_"Are economies of scale and being able to dictate terms etc real?" _Financially yes. On the disadvantageous side it could bring quality or lead time issues which need to be controlled at a cost.


butchersapron said:


> "What disadvantages does being small bring when faced with larger competition benefiting from the above?


Too numerous to mention but bottom line is financially: higher cost base, lower margins.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2015)

Lo Siento.  - i think this where you came in...


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but why did you have to post shit up at all? why not post something useful or at the very least funny?


fucksakes, cliquey bollox...  brogdale and c66 ran with the 6th-form joke earlier...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> fucksakes, cliquey bollox...  brogdale and c66 ran with the 6th-form joke earlier...


yeh but why did YOU post shit up? btw no one likes a grass.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but why did YOU post shit up? btw no one likes a grass.


grass? what are you? u75 old bill?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> grass? what are you? u75 old bill?


you must have been really popular at school 'yes, i did post shit  but it was brogdale and c66 wot started it'


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2015)

Wasn't laughing _with_ the capitalist.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you must have been really popular at school 'yes, i did post shit  but it was brogdale and c66 wot started it'


I was actually, until I got to the sixth form. couldn't be arsed to sit around in the common room all day discussing marx


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I was actually, until I got to the sixth form. couldn't be arsed to sit around in the common room all day discussing marx


Weak.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I was actually, until I got to the sixth form. couldn't be arsed to sit around in the common room all day discussing marx


yeh yeh change the fucking record


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 30, 2015)

Maybe the hipsters were right all along


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh yeh change the fucking record


ok. Do you have anything to say on topic?
What are your views on the German rent cap legislation I posted earlier?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> ok. Do you have anything to say on topic?
> What are your views on the German rent cap legislation I posted earlier?


it doesn't apply here


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> One is not more moral than the other.


OK I'll draw the line - we disagree on this one point but its enough now


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I was actually, until I got to the sixth form. couldn't be arsed to sit around in the common room all day discussing marx



I left school at 16, went straight into paid employment. Discussing Marx etc was part of everyday working-class life for me, and for my school and work contemporaries - it was inescapable in the '70s and early '80s because of the political events of that era - even in the ranks of the British army!
I suppose people who grew up with Thatcher might have an excuse for not being arsed about Marx - after all, so many were indoctrinated that socialism, collectivism and even trade unions were "bad things" - but no-one else has an excuse unless they're boss-class, born and bred.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Weak.



At least no "I went to the University of Life, School of Hard Knocks" yet, unless I've missed it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> At least no "I went to the University of Life, School of Hard Knocks" yet, unless I've missed it.


from the looks of it, pocketscience didn't even apply there 

probably would have been turned down anyway


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I left school at 16, went straight into paid employment. Discussing Marx etc was part of everyday working-class life for me, and for my school and work contemporaries - it was inescapable in the '70s and early '80s because of the political events of that era - even in the ranks of the British army!
> I suppose people who grew up with Thatcher might have an excuse for not being arsed about Marx - after all, so many were indoctrinated that socialism, collectivism and even trade unions were "bad things" - but no-one else has an excuse unless they're boss-class, born and bred.


I don't think it was the indoctrination (for my part at least) but more the _disillusionment_ with politics and economics that she induced


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> ok. Do you have anything to say on topic?
> What are your views on the German rent cap legislation I posted earlier?



I'll give you my view: It's great, and it'll never happen here, at least not while more than a third of our Parliamentary representatives are _rentiers_. A shift to German-style rental legislation would mean completely changing the basis of the landlord/tenant relationship in favour of much greater tenant rights, and turkeys don't tend to vote for Christmas, even though they're usually stupid cluckers.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> from the looks of it, pocketscience didn't even apply there
> 
> probably would have been turned down anyway


70 &80's SE London council estate. Born into it and passed with flying colours me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I don't think it was the indoctrination (for my part at least) but more the _disillusionment_ with politics and economics that she induced



All part of the same issue. She (and her people) made politics less community-driven and more centralised, and sent clear messages that "this isn't for you, it's for us".


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I don't think it was the indoctrination (for my part at least) but more the _disillusionment_ with politics and economics that she induced


That's a very strange reaction to fatch. If she caused you to feel disillusioned, what illusions about conservatism did you hold?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 30, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That's a very strange reaction to fatch. If she caused you to feel disillusioned, what illusions about conservatism did you hold?


I didn't have any prior illusions because I was an infant when she was getting started. By the time I could grasp the reality that a head politician could take the piss out of the people so much, and reap so much destruction, I'd firmly taken the pov of why the fuck should I trust any of it (the system)


----------



## Artaxerxes (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I didn't have any prior illusions because I was an infant when she was getting started. By the time I could grasp the reality that a head politician could take the piss out of the people so much, and reap so much destruction, I'd firmly taken the pov of why the fuck should I trust any of it (the system)



Likewise, I was brought up listening to rants about the system by a bitter investigative reporter who clearly suffered from depression and alcoholism in the 80's and 90's, it did not ender me to the system or the thought people could make a difference.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I didn't have any prior illusions because I was an infant when she was getting started. By the time I could grasp the reality that a head politician could take the piss out of the people so much, and reap so much destruction, I'd firmly taken the pov of why the fuck should I trust any of it (the system)


OK, so not really disillusioned, then? More cynical, if anything.

So (today) you're a capitalist you doesn't trust capital's political system?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

brogdale said:


> OK, so not really disillusioned, then? More cynical, if anything.


Maybe you're right. I may have used the wrong word


brogdale said:


> So (today) you're a capitalist you doesn't trust capital's political system?


If you say so. Not my ideal choice though (the being a capitalist bit) just the best of the options available. It's virtually impossible for me to get a "job" in my profession (at least in my locality) so I took the plunge with some partners who were in the same situation.
Amazing what having sprogs does to you isnt it.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'll give you my view: It's great, and it'll never happen here, at least not while more than a third of our Parliamentary representatives are _rentiers_. A shift to German-style rental legislation would mean completely changing the basis of the landlord/tenant relationship in favour of much greater tenant rights, and turkeys don't tend to vote for Christmas, even though they're usually stupid cluckers.


Seeing as he keeps being brought up on this thread with regards to business & exploitation, I'm interested to know what Marx has to say about land ownership and whether he expressed views on the degree of exploitation* that it spreads through society (I've taken it on as a homework assignment).

My gut feeling (with regards to capital and exploitation) is that land ownership is the root of all evil and, if you take the incentive away form people to own land, then most of the i'lls of capitalisms will fall away.

*I say the degree of exploitation because I think there are levels to it.
My local baker for example runs a small business,_ can only afford to pay minimum wages to her employees_. She's by no means well off - I wouldn't be surprised if she was getting supplementary benefits.
Yet she has to spend 40k a year on rent to an owner who's family have owned the building since the 1930s. If her business folds I have to get my loafs and fucking cakes from the supermarket (big business- less exploitative) 
Listening to some on here I'd be led to believe that the owner of the bakers is just a bad as the landlord. I just don't see it that way.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 31, 2015)

Not sure what Marx said but Marxists have always attacked rentiers and landlords.
Land was the basis of feudal economics, now it's just a distinct part of capital. I don't think you could have capitalism without ownership of capital, so if you didn't have ownership of land, you wouldn't have capitalism, you'd have another economic system.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> If you say so. Not my ideal choice though (the being a capitalist bit) just the best of the options available. It's virtually impossible for me to get a "job" in my profession (at least in my locality) so I took the plunge with some partners who were in the same situation.
> Amazing what having sprogs does to you isnt it.


You are a capitalist in that you have repeatedly said that capitalism is the only feasible social structure and mocked these who disagree as being nothing but sixth form students.

Regardless of whether or not you are happy in the role that capitalism defines for you, defending it makes you a capitalist.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

kabbes said:


> You are a capitalist in that you have repeatedly said that capitalism is the only feasible social structure and mocked these who disagree as being nothing but sixth form students.


Did I say "that capitalism is the only feasible social structure"??? I doubt that.
I'd seen the dog-end of communism in eastern europe with my own eyes. It never occurred to me that it wasn't a feasible social structure (although at the time I did think they could have made it a bit more colourful).
Maybe you're lumping my posts together with batboy?


kabbes said:


> Regardless of whether or not you are happy in the role that capitalism defines for you, defending it makes you a capitalist.


I'd never denied it, so I don't understand why you feel the need to reaffirm it.

Serious question (for that homework assignment of mine), does _buying_ property make someone a capitalist?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Did I say "that capitalism is the only feasible social structure"??? I doubt that.
> I'd seen the dog-end of communism in eastern europe with my own eyes. It never occurred to me that it wasn't a feasible social structure (although at the time I did think they could have made it a bit more colourful).
> Maybe you're lumping my posts together with batboy?
> 
> ...


Not if it's for their own subsistance/utility, no. Owning the means of production does, and that's you.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Did I say "that capitalism is the only feasible social structure"??? I doubt that.
> I'd seen the dog-end of communism in eastern europe with my own eyes. It never occurred to me that it wasn't a feasible social structure (although at the time I did think they could have made it a bit more colourful).
> Maybe you're lumping my posts together with batboy?


 
At the time that batboy was seriously attempting to suggest that capitalism was the same thing as trading, had always been with us and is the only way anything can be run, you were making posts like this:



pocketscience said:


> No, no sarcasm. Just wondering what your UK (or particularly in this case London) would look like after killing off the "nation of shopkeepers".
> What should it become ??? Seriously, I'm interested.
> A nation of property developers???


 
That's just one example of a whole stream of posts you were making that was doing things like accusing people of being sixth-formers for suggesting that capitalism was not the only way, mocking the idea of "property is theft" and otherwise creating a lot of antagonism with anybody arguing with batboy, whilst never yourself suggesting you disagreed with what batboy was saying.

If you don't think that capitalism is the best option then that's great, but you did a good job of indicating otherwise.



> Serious question (for that homework assignment of mine), does _buying_ property make someone a capitalist?


Nothing you do to survive within a capitalist system inherently makes you a capitalist.  We all prop up the tenets of capitalism on a daily basis; we have no choice in this.

Believing in capitalism as the best option is what makes you a capitalist.  Actively aiming to support capitalism is what makes you a capitalist.  Arguably, going above and beyond the actions that give you a reasonable existence and pursuing options that accumulate capital beyond this "reasonable" level also make you a capitalist, but that will lead to a lot of arguments about what comprises "reasonable".


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

I don't want to be lumped together with the posts of batboy. There was no association with that quote of mine to his posts and I certainly wasn't defending his stance if thats what your implying (the Jewish angle bit was off the chart for me too as well as many others).
What I engaged in was the attitude shown by some posters towards the garage owner - simply becuse I can sympathise towards his and his employees situation.
This post really got my back up:


Lo Siento. said:


> He's not actually been driven out by "hipsters", has he? He's a small capitalist who's been driven out by medium-sized capitalists.


It stinks of sniggering. Maybe it's just expressed entirely rationally. At very best it comes across quite cold. There was also the "small businesses can fuck off etc..
I hate to use a cliche, but: try telling that to the mechanics and their families who are fucked now. Tell them they can fuck off to Westfields in Stratford and work for one of the "big companies"  there. Tell them "Big companies are much better".
Do we have any idea what they're going through??? I've seen small businesses in this situation where the owner has had to run up a ton of debt because he hasn't the heart to lay off his workers.
And yeah yeah it's all capitalisms fault. We all know that!!!!. No need to fucking snigger about it though!


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 31, 2015)

I don't think it's sniggering. The point is that blaming young hipster types obscures the actual processes that are happening.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2015)

I don't see sniggering in that post. It's a plain statement of the facts as seen by the poster.

And as I see it, coldness towards human needs is one of the defining features of capitalism, in fact, as social need is relegated to a secondary concern, to be considered only as and when required for the production of profit.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> *Small businesses can fuck off*. Unless they support working class actions (I'm sure some do) and/ or stuff in the community, they can't suddenly come crying for working class support when it suddenly dawns on them that the shit can affect them too.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I don't want to be lumped together with the posts of batboy. There was no association with that quote of mine to his posts and I certainly wasn't defending his stance if thats what your implying (the Jewish angle bit was off the chart for me too as well as many others).
> What I engaged in was the attitude shown by some posters towards the garage owner - simply becuse I can sympathise towards his and his employees situation.
> This post really got my back up:
> 
> ...


The sniggering, much like everything else you seem to be reacting to on this thread, is entirely in your head.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

kabbes said:


> *
> Nothing you do to survive within a capitalist system inherently makes you a capitalist.*  We all prop up the tenets of capitalism on a daily basis; we have no choice in this.
> 
> *Believing in capitalism as the best option is what makes you a capitalist. * Actively aiming to support capitalism is what makes you a capitalist.  Arguably, going above and beyond the actions that give you a reasonable existence and pursuing options that accumulate capital beyond this "reasonable" level also make you a capitalist, but that will lead to a lot of arguments about what comprises "reasonable".



The two bold sentences contradict one another somewhat
So now I'm not sure if I am a capitalist 

"does _buying_ property make someone a capitalist?"
Is there no simple yes or no answer?

KM





> We will not join in the sentimental tears wept over this by romanticism. Romanticism always confuses the shamefulness of _huckstering the land_ with the perfectly rational consequence, inevitable and desirable within the realm of private property, of the _huckstering of private property_ in land. In the first place, feudal landed property is already by its very nature huckstered land – the earth which is estranged from man and hence confronts him in the shape of a few great lords.


----------



## andysays (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> The two bold sentences contradict one another somewhat
> So now I'm not sure if I am a capitalist
> 
> "does _buying_ property make someone a capitalist?"
> ...



As I understand it, buying/owning *economically productive* property makes you a capitalist, as does employing workers for wages.

You've been a bit vague about the nature of your small business and your role within it, so I for one am not sure if you personally qualify or not.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2015)

andysays said:


> As I understand it, buying/owning *economically productive* property makes you a capitalist, as does employing workers for wages.
> 
> You've been a bit vague about the nature of your small business and your role within it, so I for one am not sure if you personally qualify or not.


I'd already told him that above. I'm not sure he always gets what he's being told tbh


----------



## andysays (Mar 31, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I'd already told him that above. I'm not sure he always gets what he's being told tbh



It's probably because you're all being so sneering and beastly to him


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2015)

andysays said:


> It's probably because you're all being so sneering and beastly to him


Stop sniggering at the back..


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I'd already told him that above. I'm not sure he always gets what he's being told tbh


Sorry,  missed your post initially.
Now Kabbes has answered too.
How does this multi quotes thing work?


----------



## quiquaquo (Mar 31, 2015)

Hipsters and Hasidim. Both start with the letter H.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

So 


andysays said:


> As I understand it, buying/owning *economically productive* property makes you a capitalist, as does employing workers for wages.
> 
> You've been a bit vague about the nature of your small business and your role within it, so I for one am not sure if you personally qualify or not.


Hasn't all property been "economically productive" for the last 30 odd years


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not if it's for their own subsistance/utility, no. *Owning the means of production does, and that's you.*


Where do you draw the line when taking Kabbes quote into consideration.


> Nothing you do to survive within a capitalist system inherently makes you a capitalist.


----------



## andysays (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Hasn't all property been "economically productive" for the last 30 odd years



If you own a house which you live in, that isn't "economically productive"; if you own a house or houses which you rent out, that is.

If you own a car which you drive to work in, that isn't "economically productive"; if you own half a dozen cars which you pay people to drive as taxis, charging passengers per mile, those cars are economically productive.

In other words, property is economically productive when it's used to make its owner money.


----------



## Boycey (Mar 31, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> Hipsters and Hasidim. Both start with the letter H.



both groups also have a thing for beards and retro clothing


----------



## BigTom (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> So
> 
> Hasn't all property been "economically productive" for the last 30 odd years



Someone's house isn't economically productive, they don't make a profit from it.

(e2a: andysays beat me to it)


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I don't think it's sniggering. The point is that blaming young hipster types obscures the actual processes that are happening.


I wasn't sure at first either then he started the whole small buisness being more likely exploitative (in the vernacular [thx BA] sense) shit too... all while the Landlords actions go by without comment.
Like I said, if it's not sniggering it's very cold... 
besides, the only mention of hipsters is from the journo. The bloke (owner) isn't really digging out the "arty types" directly either. He's just saying that with the arrival of them after the Olympics, the LandLord is now able to take the piss (exploit - in the vernacular)...


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 31, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Someone's house isn't economically productive, they don't make a profit from it.
> 
> (e2a: andysays beat me to it)


the spawn of their loins might eventually though. If they are lucky and nothing unforseen wipes that capital out.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I wasn't sure at first either then he started the whole small buisness being more likely exploitative (in the vernacular [thx BA] sense) shit too... all while the Landlords actions go by without comment.
> Like I said, if it's not sniggering it's very cold...
> besides, the only mention of hipsters is from the journo. The bloke (owner) isn't really digging out the "arty types" directly either. He's just saying that with the arrival of them after the Olympics, the LandLord is now able to take the piss (exploit - in the vernacular)...



Landlords can also be small businesses.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

andysays said:


> If you own a house which you live in, that isn't "economically productive"; if you own a house or houses which you rent out, that is.
> 
> If you own a car which you drive to work in, that isn't "economically productive"; if you own half a dozen cars which you pay people to drive as taxis, charging passengers per mile, those cars are economically productive.
> 
> In other words, property is economically productive when it's used to make its owner money.


OK thanks
So what happens when you sell a property for a profit (and don't forget to obediently pay your *capital* gains tax people)
Are you a capitalist then??


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2015)

Difference between economically productive in normal economic terms and the more rigorous definition we're edging towards. Rent on _property _just moves around already produced surplus value. It doesn't produce any new surplus value. Properly productive capital is that which _produces _surplus value (and that _can _include rent, just not this sort).

Also, supporting capitalism makes you pro-capitalism. Owning/controlling productive capital makes you a capitalist. And you can even do the latter and oppose capitalism.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> OK thanks
> So what happens when you sell a property for a profit (and don't forget to obediently pay your *capital* gains tax people)
> Are you a capitalist then??


Where has the money (not profit) pocketed from the sale come from?


----------



## tim (Mar 31, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> Hipsters and Hasidim. Both start with the letter H.



And both are quite close, alphabetically, to Jihadism, and in the case of Hasidism also a near anagram. It should also be noticed that Hipster and Hitler are not that dissimilar!


----------



## andysays (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> OK thanks
> So what happens when you sell a property for a profit (and don't forget to obediently pay your *capital* gains tax people)
> Are you a capitalist then??



I would say that if you sell the house you live in, then use the money to buy another house to live in, you're not a capitalist.

(And to pick up DotCommunist's point, if you inherit a house when a relative dies and sell it, that doesn't make you a capitalist, unless you use the proceeds to set yourself up in business)

If you buy and sell houses (or cars, or anything else) for the express purpose of making a profit, then you are a capitalist.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2015)

tim said:


> And both are quite close, alphabetically, to Jihadism, and in the case of Hasidism also a near anagram. It should also be noticed that Hipster and Hitler are not that dissimilar!


i always wondered about the tache but i thought there was a nasty scar behind it or something.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2015)

andysays said:


> I would say that if you sell the house you live in, then use the money to buy another house to live in, you're not a capitalist.
> 
> (And to pick up DotCommunist's point, if you inherit a house when a relative dies and sell it, that doesn't make you a capitalist, unless you use the proceeds to set yourself up in business)
> 
> If you buy and sell houses (or cars, or anything else) for the express purpose of making a profit, then you are a capitalist.


This is what's called profit on expropriation (or alienation) - and not productive of surplus value. It's a re-division rather than new production. So part of the capitalists cycle but not capitalist in itself.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Landlords can also be small businesses.


Sure but in this case its owned by someone  who was 241st on the sunday times rich list in 2009 with £233M .
Have a look at their website. they're not small.

but hey ho. the garage owner can't complain. He's a capaitalist. Live by the sword and all that... karma for being exploitative no doubt


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2015)

The voices are back i see.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Sure but in this case its owned by someone  who was 241st on the sunday times rich list with £233M .
> Have a look at their website. they're not small.
> 
> but hey ho. the garage owner can't complain. He's a capaitalist. Live by the sword and all that... karma for being exploitative no doubt



He can of course complain, it's just that complaining won't make any difference.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> I wasn't sure at first either then he started the whole small buisness being more likely exploitative (in the vernacular [thx BA] sense) shit too... all while the Landlords actions go by without comment.
> Like I said, if it's not sniggering it's very cold...
> besides, the only mention of hipsters is from the journo. The bloke (owner) isn't really digging out the "arty types" directly either. He's just saying that with the arrival of them after the Olympics, the LandLord is now able to take the piss (exploit - in the vernacular)...



Yet again, you're taking everything as a personal criticism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> Yet again, you're taking everything as a personal criticism.


he's throwing himself in front of the ball every time


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> OK thanks
> So what happens when you sell a property for a profit (and don't forget to obediently pay your *capital* gains tax people)
> Are you a capitalist then??



And live...where?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Where has the money (not profit) pocketed from the sale come from?


the buyer, no?
or do you mean the abstract i.e: market value?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> the buyer, no?
> or do you mean the abstract i.e: market value?


I mean the money/value that will pass from buyer to seller. Did they make it between them? Or is it from an already existing stock?


----------



## andysays (Mar 31, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Difference between economically productive in normal economic terms and the more rigorous definition we're edging towards. *Rent on property just moves around already produced surplus value. It doesn't produce any new surplus value. Properly productive capital is that which produces surplus value (and that can include rent, just not this sort)*.
> 
> Also, supporting capitalism makes you pro-capitalism. Owning/controlling productive capital makes you a capitalist. And you can even do the latter and oppose capitalism.



Can you expand on this a bit, maybe explaining in simple terms what is meant in this context by surplus value? 

And are you saying there is some difference in renting out a house, and renting out something like a factory which is itself economically productive?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> And live...where?


Does it matter?
How about Norfolk?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Does it matter?
> How about Norfolk?



Think about what is being said to you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> Think about what is being said to you.


you're optimistick as ever


----------



## BigTom (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> OK thanks
> So what happens when you sell a property for a profit (and don't forget to obediently pay your *capital* gains tax people)
> Are you a capitalist then??



You don't pay CGT on the sale of your home

/pedant


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2015)

andysays said:


> Can you expand on this a bit, maybe explaining in simple terms what is meant in this context by surplus value?
> 
> And are you saying there is some difference in renting out a house, and renting out something like a factory which is itself economically productive?


If you rent out a house you take from the existing stock of value (through the renter). Productive capital - in classical terms, a factory - produces extra value. And yes, renting out to productive capital means you are paid back the rent through the extra value created in the production process and then realised on the market. That's capital proper.

Surplus value is the extra created in the production process - crudely, the difference between the amount of value you spend on that process and what it sells for. The key being the wages paid - i.e you pay someone the equivalent of 80 'values' which they manage to produce in 4 days but you have their labour for another day so get an extra 20 'values' (20 'values' produced a day) - the surplus value. (Leaving out machinery and all that)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2015)

It's right about now that someone would usually post the money trick i think.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> Think about what is being said to you.


the norfolk thing was meant to be ironic.
the question about whether it matters wasn't.
I seriously don't undersatand what kind of answer you're expecting. 
I could say:
A house of less value
A flat of more value
In the back of a truck
On a boat to sail the world


----------



## CNT36 (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Seeing as he keeps being brought up on this thread with regards to business & exploitation, I'm interested to know what Marx has to say about land ownership and whether he expressed views on the degree of exploitation* that it spreads through society *(I've taken it on as a homework assignment).*
> 
> My gut feeling (with regards to capital and exploitation) is that land ownership is the root of all evil and, if you take the incentive away form people to own land, then most of the i'lls of capitalisms will fall away.
> 
> ...


If you know any wayward German philosophers you could pay them to do it for you.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

BigTom said:


> You don't pay CGT on the sale of your home
> 
> /pedant


thx - shows how much I know about property ownership:

This bit does make me laugh though:

you didn’t buy it just to make a gain
Like people would buy a house if they knew they'd make a loss


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> If you know any wayward German philosophers you could pay them to do it for you.


----------



## andysays (Mar 31, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> If you rent out a house you take from the existing stock of value (through the renter). Productive capital - in classical terms, a factory - produces extra value. And yes, renting out to productive capital means you are paid back the rent through the extra value created in the production process and then realised on the market. That's capital proper.
> 
> Surplus value is the extra created in the production process - crudely, the difference between the amount of value you spend on that process and what it sells for. The key being the wages paid - i.e you pay someone the equivalent of 80 'values' which they manage to produce in 4 days but you have their labour for another day so get an extra 20 'values' (20 'values' produced a day) - the surplus value. (Leaving out machinery and all that)



So surplus value is *only* created in the production process, and is effectively about the capitalist getting more value out of the worker than he pays in wages.

Is there another term for the extra value (ie beyond use value) which a property owner gets out of the owner of a business when they rent out the factory, like the property company renting to the garage boss in the original example?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> So
> 
> Hasn't all property been "economically productive" for the last 30 odd years


Fictitious capital.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2015)

andysays said:


> So surplus value is *only* created in the production process, and is effectively about the capitalist getting more value out of the worker than he pays in wages.
> 
> Is there another term for the extra value (ie beyond use value) which a property owner gets out of the owner of a business when they rent out the factory, like the property company renting to the garage boss in the original example?


It just counts as capital - as one part of the productive bundle - basically the realised surplus value = profit (what the capitalist takes) Interest(what the money lender, if one) and rent if required). All three together are what capital is. So rent is the term. The key is not to look at (or not only look at) the landlord/hirer - what's the bloody word? relationship but all three of them in relation to each other and then to labour.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> the norfolk thing was meant to be ironic.
> the question about whether it matters wasn't.
> I seriously don't undersatand what kind of answer you're expecting.
> I could say:
> ...



Some real world examples would be good


----------



## andysays (Mar 31, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> It just counts as capital - as one part of the productive bundle - basically the realised surplus value = profit (what the capitalist takes) Interest(what the money lender, if one) and rent if required). All three together are what capital is. So rent is the term. The key is not to look at (or not only look at) the landlord/hirer - what's the bloody word? relationship but all three of them in relation to each other and then to labour.



So does Marx not make any distinction between the different forms of capital or the relationships between owners of those different forms?

I used to have a vague understanding of this, but I've pretty much forgotten what I once knew - can you recommend a basic text to start me off again?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2015)

andysays said:


> So does Marx not make any distinction between the different forms of capital or the relationships between owners of those different forms?
> 
> I used to have a vague understanding of this, but I've pretty much forgotten what I once knew - can you recommend a basic text to start me off again?


Of course he does - and i'm not quite sure how you could jump to that conclusion from what i posted given that i said the exact opposite! He makes very long and very detailed differences, wait till you get to absolute rent and differential rent, monopoly rent etc - and that's the minor part of the bundle.

I would, without hesitation, recommend the effort to read capital itself rather than any shorter intro.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2015)

And the key bit of marx as regards this thread is about the concentration and centralisation of capital - the dynamic here is clear - higher entry costs and higher cots to stay in the game. Lot of money sloshing around looking for a home (why?), property has a higher potential return and tends not to lose value. So we get big landlords and big capital squeezing everyone else. If you try to resist this law of capital, this is key, then the rent part of the bundle (profit/interest/rent) rises and the others get smaller, which means more has to be pumped out of those who the bundle relies on - that's labour power, the workers and their families. Which is precisely why conditions are often worse in smaller enterprises.  Back to square one.


----------



## andysays (Mar 31, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Of course he does - and i'm not quite sure how you could jump to that conclusion from what i posted given that i said the exact opposite! He makes very long and very detailed differences, wait till you get to absolute rent and differential rent, monopoly rent etc - and that's the minor part of the bundle.



OK, I think it's me trying to reconcile the little I can remember, probably inaccurately, with what you're saying which is causing my misunderstanding.



> I would, without hesitation, recommend the effort to read capital itself rather than any shorter intro.



Thanks, I think, I'll give it a go...


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> It just counts as capital - as one part of the productive bundle - basically the realised surplus value = profit (what the capitalist takes) Interest(what the money lender, if one) and rent if required). All three together are what capital is. So rent is the term. The key is not to look at (or not only look at) the landlord/hirer -* what's the bloody word? *relationship but all three of them in relation to each other and then to labour.


Tenant?


----------



## The Boy (Mar 31, 2015)

lessee?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2015)

The Boy said:


> lessee?


least?


----------



## The Boy (Mar 31, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> least?



*sigh*

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lessee

I'm not walking three metres to my bookshelf to find an *actual* reference though.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2015)

What's that lessee? A boy is trapped down the old well? Woof!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> What's that lessee? A boy is trapped down the old well? Woof!


Bloody jews.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Bloody jews.



Ooof!


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> Some real world examples would be good


1.Mr & Mrs Smith buy a 3 bed council house in Southwark in 1984 for ~60K, now paid outriight sell it upon retirement in 2015 for ~600K. Buy a cottage in Norfolk for 200K and adds 400k to their retirement fund (to visit carribean golf courses)
2. Same as 1. except 400k goes to only child (30Yrs old) who buys a penthouse in Hackney for 300K (blows the remaining 100k on coke)
3. Mr and Mrs Jones, young couple buy 150K flat in Southwark in 2009 on mortgage. Mrs J gets pregnant with twins so they decide to move to the suburbs. Put house on market in 2015 and it's snapped up by a Russian oligarch (for his daughter who wants to grace London with her ballet skills) for 2 million. Mr & Mrs Jones shit their pants with joy and buy a house on the Isle of Thanet for 300K in the hope Farrage is elected.

Now if I'm getting this right from the feedback here, they all might be either capitalists or not capitalists (depending on where you draw certain lines).


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2015)

You're deliberately being obtuse


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> You're deliberately being obtuse


So that's a dont know then


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> So that's a dont know then



You've been dishonest and obtuse throughout the entire thread. Why would I think you've stopped now?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

if that's what you believe, why the fuck did you ask for real world examples then?
waste of fucking time


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> if that's what you believe, why the fuck did you ask for real world examples then?



I was giving you another chance. You've been really fucking rude throughout this thread though.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> I was giving you another chance. You've been really fucking rude throughout this thread though.


Dishonest? You think what I've said here isn't true? PM me & I'd be glad to invite you over to verify for yourself everything I've said, in person, if you want?
Rude? Maybe a reaction to the tone of others?
Obtuse? as above, the tone makes the music


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Dishonest? You think what I've said here isn't true? PM me & I'd be glad to invite you over to verify for yourself everything I've said, in person, if you want?
> Rude? Maybe a reaction to the tone of others?
> Obtuse? as above, the tone makes the music



Serious question - what do you and batboy expect when posting on a politics forum that mainly caters for left liberals running right through Marxism to unrelenting anarchists?


----------



## maomao (Mar 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Serious question - what do you and batboy expect when posting on a politics forum that mainly caters for left liberals running right through Marxism to unrelenting anarchists?


Batboy has admittedly been an arsehole throughout as always but I think pocketscience has made a reasonable effort to engage and adjust his opinions.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Serious question - what do you and batboy expect when posting on a politics forum that mainly caters for left liberals running right through Marxism to unrelenting anarchists?



tbh I don't expect less.
I don't want to speak for Batboy (there's been no association between my posts and his and I certainly don't like that he singled out an ethnic group to make his point)
I'm guessing you single me out with him because we both own businesses and you suggest we should expect such a reception because of that.
If so, then do you think there's some kind of mutual exclusivity between being business owners and "left liberals running right through Marxism to unrelenting anarchists"?

Here, you can go through the brixton buzz site and check out all the food places:
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/the-ulti...he-best-restaurants-and-cafes-in-sw2-and-sw9/

The majority will have a business owner. A fair few of them will more than likely be "left liberals running right through Marxism to unrelenting anarchists" no doubt just about getting by, scraping a living. The majority are small capitalist under threat of being driven out by medium to large capitalists.

Would you prefer them in your neighbourhood or the usual KFC,McD, Wethersppon shit?


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

maomao said:


> Batboy has admittedly been an arsehole throughout as always but I think pocketscience has made a reasonable effort to engage and adjust his opinions.


thank you


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2015)

maomao said:


> Batboy has admittedly been an arsehole throughout as always but I think pocketscience has made a reasonable effort to engage and adjust his opinions.



I think he's been fucking rude


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> tbh I don't expect less.
> Would you prefer them in your neighbourhood or the usual KFC,McD, Wethersppon shit?



Couldn't care less, I'll stick with me sarnies in tin foil, ta.


----------



## maomao (Mar 31, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> I think he's been fucking rude


By urban standards? Really? _Really?_ And without any provocation whatsoever? What's he meant to do? Prostrate himself at the feet of the monothought clique and beg for reeducation?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> 1.Mr & Mrs Smith buy a 3 bed council house in Southwark in 1984 for ~60K, now paid outriight sell it upon retirement in 2015 for ~600K. Buy a cottage in Norfolk for 200K and adds 400k to their retirement fund (to visit carribean golf courses)
> 2. Same as 1. except 400k goes to only child (30Yrs old) who buys a penthouse in Hackney for 300K (blows the remaining 100k on coke)
> 3. Mr and Mrs Jones, young couple buy 150K flat in Southwark in 2009 on mortgage. Mrs J gets pregnant with twins so they decide to move to the suburbs. Put house on market in 2015 and it's snapped up by a Russian oligarch (for his daughter who wants to grace London with her ballet skills) for 2 million. Mr & Mrs Jones shit their pants with joy and buy a house on the Isle of Thanet for 300K in the hope Farrage is elected.
> 
> Now if I'm getting this right from the feedback here, they all might be either capitalists or not capitalists (depending on where you draw certain lines).


In none of those cases have they bought their house to be an investment vehicle, in none of them has their capital been used to extract surplus value.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> tbh I don't expect less.
> I don't want to speak for Batboy (there's been no association between my posts and his and I certainly don't like that he singled out an ethnic group to make his point)
> I'm guessing you single me out with him because we both own businesses and you suggest we should expect such a reception because of that.
> If so, then do you think there's some kind of mutual exclusivity between being business owners and "left liberals running right through Marxism to unrelenting anarchists"?
> ...



You do know that Brixton Buzz is only connected to here via editor?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 31, 2015)

maomao said:


> By urban standards? Really? _Really?_ And without any provocation whatsoever? What's he meant to do? Prostrate himself at the feet of the monothought clique and beg for reeducation?



There's nuances but without details and following his rather bizarre analysis how would you expect this to go?


----------



## maomao (Mar 31, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> thx - shows how much I know about property ownership:
> 
> This bit does make me laugh though:
> 
> ...



Define loss. We bought a house knowing it was probably at a market peak because it was the only time things had come together to make it possible and we wanted to stop pissing our wages away on the landlord's mortgage. We're happy to have a roof over our heads and don't expect to make a usable penny on it in our lifetimes.


----------



## maomao (Mar 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> There's nuances but without details and following his rather bizarre analysis how would you expect this to go?


Well it's rare for anyone to concede as much in an argument on urban as he has in this one and I think he deserves a little credit for that. I think he's also been attacked for positions that batboy put forward long after batboy withdrew from the argument.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 31, 2015)

Fair point.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 31, 2015)

'Running a business' is also very ambiguous. My gf 'runs a business' but all she does is have clients that want their hair styled for cheaper than salon prices. She doesn't employ anyone and is basically just self employed. PS could fall into this bracket afaik, which renders our arguments irrelevant.


----------



## maomao (Mar 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> 'Running a business' is also very ambiguous. My gf 'runs a business' but all she does is have clients that want their hair styled for cheaper than salon prices. She doesn't employ anyone and is basically just self employed. PS could fall into this bracket afaik, which renders our arguments irrelevant.



The petite bourgoisie are a funny old class.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 31, 2015)

maomao said:


> The petite bourgoisie are a funny old class.



Hmm. The petit bourgeosie work alongside those they employ. Self employment works in favour of Thatcherism as there's no terms and conditions of employment and unionisation proves impossible. Hence why it's encouraged through tax credits.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

maomao said:


> Define loss. We bought a house knowing it was probably at a market peak because it was the only time things had come together to make it possible and we wanted to stop pissing our wages away on the landlord's mortgage. We're happy to have a roof over our heads and don't expect to make a usable penny on it in our lifetimes.


I'd say a loss would be the difference between selling at a lower price than you bought, it minus inflation.
Like wise, I thought that when a house is sold for more than they bought it the "profit" minus the proprtional inflation rate over the ownership period on the bought price would be liable for capital gains tax.

* on a side note: I wonder how long it's gong to take for the tax man to hunt Airbnb rentiers down and hammer the owners when they sell


----------



## tim (Mar 31, 2015)

maomao said:


> The petite bourgoisie are a funny old class.


Yes, working class people who, clearly, don't know their place.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> 'Running a business' is also very ambiguous. My gf 'runs a business' but all she does is have clients that want their hair styled for cheaper than salon prices. She doesn't employ anyone and is basically just self employed. PS could fall into this bracket afaik, which renders our arguments irrelevant.


Not sure about self employed but freelancers can set up an employment contract wit anyone and employ. ie be a small company. I guess you could argue a SE or FL acting alone is a small company too.

Anyway, I think I've made that clear enough for the discussion about my shit. But I'll summarise again.
The company is basically a partnership/collective of freelancers (in very specific service industry field - you don't need to now - and I can't be arsed with the ridicule and prejudices if  tell).
We only exist because we're so small and have such little work we can do all the company admin stuff ourselves enabling us to offer clients attractive prices and under cut exploitative agencies( yep we're cheepos - but clients like it like that as they're also strapped for cash ). As I said - all staff are operational - no administration overheads.
The clients dont deal with individual freelancers only Ltd companies. As I and 2 partners were the persons that broke down the structure of client & agency we're the mugs who front our names for the company yet everyone we work with (mostly other freelancers) gets the same daily rate (even me and the 2 partners).
It's project work and there's never been enough of it to fill a full year for 3 of us, some years say only 3 months work for 5 FTE, sometimes when we have no strict deadline the 3 of us can work part time and stretch it out.
Any profit or loss at year end means we can vary the rates we offer the clients going forward (for the next project) or up or lower our internal daily rate.
There is no "boss <> employee" relationship bullshit - all equals.
Every things done on a take it or leave it transparent basis.


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> In none of those cases have they bought their house to be an investment vehicle, in none of them has their capital been used to extract surplus value.


So they aren't capitalists but will earn x-times more from the transactions than a large swathe of the population in their entire working lifetime will from graft (including small biz owners)

Can't help thinking that the terminology's skewing people minds to think small business owners are cunts (because they're capitalists with the Grant Shapps-esque stigma) however little they actually earn, but Lovely Mr & mRs Smith and Jones are OK - not like those bread head capitalists.
fucked.up.shit


----------



## xenon (Apr 1, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> So they aren't capitalists but will earn x-times more from the transactions than a large swathe of the population in their entire working lifetime will from graft.
> Can't help thinking that the terminology's skewing people minds to think small business owners are cunts (because they're capitalists - with all the grant Shappsesque stigma) however little they actually earn, but Lovely Mr & mRs Smith and Jones are OK - not like those bread head capitalists.
> fucked.up.shit




Is the factory worker who wins a lottery windful more of a Capitlist than an an unsuccessful by to let landlord then? That would seem to be the case following your logic above.


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 1, 2015)

I


xenon said:


> Is the factory worker who wins a lottery windful more of a Capitlist than an an unsuccessful by to let landlord then? That would seem to be the case following your logic above.


IIUC Its not about more or less capitalist, its about is or isnt capitalist
Biz owner loss or profit= capitalist
Property seller lossor profit= not capitalist
* good point about the lottery player though dunno where they're supposed to fit in.


----------



## xenon (Apr 1, 2015)

I've not read Capital but it seems pretty obvious that if you engage in the acquisition of property, production of goods or provision of services in order to make a profit. i.e. seak to acrew the difference between the costs you bare and the price you charge in that activity, you are a Capitlist. This definition captures a lot of people of course and it's to my mind, not cenonamous with being a terrible bastard. Cooperatives still fall under that definition I think. But yeah, see point 1. Course there will be many other motives for people engaged in profit seaking enterprise but you can't sensibly deny it's not an active Capitilistic role to take on. Obviously there's a difference in impact in the activities of my local shop keeper and HSBC. The fundamental rationale for operating both those businesses with respect to gaining profit is the same though isn't it?

Genuinne question actually. Seems so to me taking a simplistic sort of first principle look at 2 extremes.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 1, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> So they aren't capitalists but will earn x-times more from the transactions than a large swathe of the population in their entire working lifetime will from graft (including small biz owners)


Well, yes.  Being a capitalist is not synonymous with being rich.   Sometimes you just get money by being in the right place at the right time. Same goes for inheriting money -- that doesn't make you a capitalist either. 



> Can't help thinking that the terminology's skewing people minds to think small business owners are cunts (because they're capitalists with the Grant Shapps-esque stigma) however little they actually earn, but Lovely Mr & mRs Smith and Jones are OK - not like those bread head capitalists.
> fucked.up.shit


Being a capitalist is not synonymous with being a cunt either. It has a good chance of turning you into one,  or being one might encourage you to be a capitalist,  but the word capitalist is not inherently value-laden. 

As I said,  we all live within a capitalist system and we all need to survive within that system.   That doesn't in and of itself make you a bad person.  The bad choices are what makes one a bad person.


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 1, 2015)

Thanks, I'd just like to quickly reiterate, I'm not being deliberatly obtuse here and appreciate the feedback. The whole capitalist stigma thing does effect me - it is a bitter pill to swallow and there's no doubt that it's used as a moralistic kosh to bolster certain arguements.


kabbes said:


> Well, yes.  Being a capitalist is not synonymous with being rich.   Sometimes you just get money by being in the right place at the right time. Same goes for inheriting money -- that doesn't make you a capitalist either.
> 
> 
> Being a capitalist is not synonymous with being a cunt either. It has a good chance of turning you into one,  or being one might encourage you to be a capitalist,  but the word capitalist is not inherently value-laden.
> ...


Yes but isn't that all besides the point for those examples blagsta asked for and I provided?
In all cases the owner of the property went to a market, purchased a commodity and at a later date returned to the market and sold it for vastly greter price , thus making a hefty profit.
The fundamental principle is the same as any trader in business just that the owner happened to use the commodity whilst he held it.
If a 2nd hand car trader ( business/ capitalist) just happened to use the vehicles he holds between trades it wouldn't make them any less a business or capitalust, no?
To me it seems like one rule for them, one for the other


----------



## brogdale (Apr 1, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Thanks, I'd just like to quickly reiterate, I'm not being deliberatly obtuse here and appreciate the feedback. The whole capitalist stigma thing does effect me - it is a bitter pill to swallow and there's no doubt that it's used as a moralistic kosh to bolster certain arguements.
> 
> Yes but isn't that all besides the point for those examples blagsta asked for and I provided?
> In all cases the owner of the property went to a market, purchased a commodity and at a later date returned to the market and sold it for vastly greter price , thus making a hefty profit.
> ...


You haven't taken the advice to read some Marx, have you?


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 1, 2015)

brogdale said:


> You haven't taken the advice to read some Marx, have you?


Yes I have - and I'm doing it, I even quoted what I thought a relevant excerpt upthread.
Do you seriously think I'd be able to read Capital _and_ comprehend it, in 3 days, whilst running a business?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 1, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Yes I have - and I'm doing it, I even quoted what I thought a relevant excerpt upthread.
> Do you seriously think I'd be able to read Capital _and_ comprehend it, in 3 days, whilst running a business?


Owning.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 1, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Thanks, I'd just like to quickly reiterate, I'm not being deliberatly obtuse here and appreciate the feedback. The whole capitalist stigma thing does effect me - it is a bitter pill to swallow and there's no doubt that it's used as a moralistic kosh to bolster certain arguements.
> 
> Yes but isn't that all besides the point for those examples blagsta asked for and I provided?
> In all cases the owner of the property went to a market, purchased a commodity and at a later date returned to the market and sold it for vastly greter price , thus making a hefty profit.
> ...


Again, buying and selling things is not the same as capitalism.  Even if you make a profit.  It's just a market economy, which could be capitalist in nature or otherwise.

Capitalism involves using a pool of capital to create additional value to the benefit of the one owning the capital.  

There are fuzzier examples than the one you are using, which is more straightforward.  Effectively, the homeowner is getting profit out of straight-up inflation.  Inflation is not value.


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 1, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Owning.


Slow down. I'm only up to 20 yards of linen and havent even reached the coat yet.


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> There are fuzzier examples than the one you are using, which is more straightforward.


Whoa there, this is fuzzy enough for me at the moment.


kabbes said:


> Effectively, the homeowner is getting profit out of straight-up inflation.  Inflation is not value.


So do property developers.


----------



## andysays (Apr 1, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Slow down. I'm only up to 20 yards of linen and havent even reached the coat yet.



Since you don't seem to have understood the examples relating to houses, try this one.

If you buy 20 yards of linen (or however much it takes to make a coat) and make it into a coat for yourself to wear, then the coat is not a commodity and you are not a capitalist.

If you buy 20 yards of linen and make it into a coat which you then sell, the coat is a commodity and you are a (small-scale) capitalist.

If you buy 2000 yards of linen and pay a workforce to make it into 100 coats which you then sell, the coats are commodities and you are a (larger-scale) capitalist.

And if you still don't understand, then there's really no hope for you...


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 1, 2015)

andysays said:


> And if you still don't understand, then there's really no hope for you...


The cynical cunt I am, I never really had any hope in the first place but reading all this, I have even less now.
We're all doomed (the non landed class that is)


----------



## kabbes (Apr 1, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> So do property developers.


No, property developers develop the property.  The clue is in the name!


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> No, property developers develop the property.


O Rly 
eta I tought we'd left the theoretical and moved to the real world now.

So if Mr & Mrs Smith & Jones buy a house for 200k, add a porch anf sell a year later for 400K (at inflated market price): developers or just "lucky to be in the right place at the right time"?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 1, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> O Rly
> eta I tought we'd left the theoretical and moved to the real world now.
> 
> So if Mr & Mrs Smith & Jones buy a house for 200k, add a porch anf sell a year later for 400K (at inflated market price): developers or just "lucky to be in the right place at the right time"?


Not to get into this too much (again) but... it would help if you stop thinking of all this as a way of labelling people as good guys and bad guys. These categories and ideas are supposed to be about helping us to understand (and potentially change) the interests, forces and processes that shape the society that we live in.

In this case the only purpose of distinguishing between Mr & Mrs Jones and Jones and Jones Property Developments Corp is not to make a (wholly subjective, largely useless) moral distinction but to understand where their money comes from, what that means for society and how that shapes their differing interests, experiences and ideas about the world.

As such, it's less important that Mr & Mrs J and JPDC are/aren't capitalists, but the material interests they share and don't share.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2015)

Boycey said:


> both groups also have a thing for beards and retro clothing



Although, to be scrupulously fair, the Orthodox have better dress sense.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> O Rly


----------



## BigTom (Apr 1, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> O Rly
> eta I tought we'd left the theoretical and moved to the real world now.
> 
> So if Mr & Mrs Smith & Jones buy a house for 200k, add a porch anf sell a year later for 400K (at inflated market price): developers or just "lucky to be in the right place at the right time"?



Did they buy the house with the only intention being to add a porch in order to double the value of the property and then sell it on for a profit, or did they buy the house to live in, add a porch because they wanted one and then sold it on for more than they bought it for?
1st case = capitalist / property developer
2nd case = not capitalist.

intention matters.

Marx drew out 3 classes - bourgeouis, petty-bourgeouis and proletariat.
Bourgeouis own and control the means of production (including land, but as Butchersapron has explained earlier in this thread, it's a distinct form of capital compared to machinery). They make their money by exploiting this ownership/control to extract surplus value from their workers.

Proletariat do not own and control the means of production, they must sell their labour in order to live. They make their money by being a wage labourer. (distinct from serfs in feudalism who were slave labourers, and had surplus value extracted from them by the land owning nobles in a different way - not sure that you would even call it surplus value though it plays the same role in a feudal system - nonetheless, the change from slave-labour to wage-labour as the dominant form of labour/capital relationships is a key part of the change/difference from/between feudalism & capitalism - there would be a different dominant relationship in socialism, because the distinction between labour/capital would be removed).

Petty Bourgeouis sits in between the two - self-employed, freelancer, micro-business types. They may own/control small amounts of capital (eg: tools) but make their money selling their labour for a wage. Come the revolution, people in this group could go either way. 

Surplus value is the difference between the income to the business and its costs, ie: profit. Bourgeouis extract surplus value from proletariat by paying them less than the value of their wages. This makes them capitalist. When it comes to landlords, they are still profiting from the labour that was put into the land/buildings, and from the labour of the people they employ to maintain that land/buildings. Marx goes into quite a lot of detail about the differences between different formations of capital and how surplus value is represented.

Petty bourgeouis do not extract surplus value because they do not employ anyone, or employ them on a freelance basis whereby they are paid all the value of their production in their wages.

If you extract surplus value, then you are capitalist. If you don't, then you are not.

That's as simple as it gets. It's too simple for the real world really, where some petty bourgeouis do extract surplus value on a small scale or at some times and not others. There are grey areas, but the housing examples you have given definitely aren't grey areas, because the people who have bought the houses have bought them to use, not as a trading commodity or with the sole intention of making profit.


----------



## andysays (Apr 1, 2015)

BigTom said:


> ...



I was already wondering about the accuracy of part of my earlier post, but this has cleared it up. I said


andysays said:


> ...If you buy 20 yards of linen and make it into a coat which you then sell, the coat is a commodity and you are a (small-scale) capitalist...



But in fact, although the coat in this example is a commodity, the maker and seller is petit bourgeois rather than a capitalist. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 1, 2015)

andysays said:


> I was already wondering about the accuracy of part of my earlier post, but this has cleared it up. I said
> 
> 
> But in fact, although the coat in this example is a commodity, the maker and seller is petit bourgeois rather than a capitalist. Thanks for the clarification.



Yep, definitely - petit bourgeois is a small class of people (or at least it was in Marx's day, I think it's rather larger now), people who work on their own account etc. It's the grey area in between the two main classes. Whether you employ people or not is key really to the difference, although there's attitude/culture mixed in there as well.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 1, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Whether you employ people or not is key really to the difference, although there's attitude/culture mixed in there as well.


So eg. a small workers' co-op would be considered petit bourgeois, inasmuch that they control some capital, but the surplus remains shared amongst the members of the co-op?


----------



## BigTom (Apr 1, 2015)

Crispy said:


> So eg. a small workers' co-op would be considered petit bourgeois, inasmuch that they control some capital, but the surplus remains shared amongst the members of the co-op?



This is one of those grey areas - I would say yes it does, but then when you get up in scale to eg : John Lewis or Mondragon (iirc, if it's not them there's another huge multinational that's a co-op) then it's not because those directors/managers that control the means of production get paid a huge wage which comes from the extraction of surplus value from their workers. A small scale co-op could see the same thing happening, with profits returned but someone getting much higher wages which aren't proportional to the value of the production they do, they are still taking surplus value from the people who work for them.

I think it was all much simpler in Marx's day, when virtually all businesses were owned by individuals/families and the distinction between ownership and control wasn't there - now ownership is so vague with co-ops and PLCs, it gets harder to be exact in a generalised way.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 1, 2015)

Worth moving past the labels here and thinking about the relationships and material interests. How does a workers' co-op thrive or grow (or even just maintain itself)?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 1, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> How does a workers' co-op thrive or grow (or even just maintain itself)?



In my thinking, this is where it comes unstuck, because "growth" in the capitalist system requires full engagement with it, or you'll be swamped by the real capitalists. It's swimming against the stream and can only really happen sustainably in specially protected pools.

(The details are missing here, but I think my intuition is correct?)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 1, 2015)

BigTom said:


> This is one of those grey areas - I would say yes it does, but then when you get up in scale to eg : John Lewis or Mondragon (iirc, if it's not them there's another huge multinational that's a co-op) then it's not because those directors/managers that control the means of production get paid a huge wage which comes from the extraction of surplus value from their workers. A small scale co-op could see the same thing happening, with profits returned but someone getting much higher wages which aren't proportional to the value of the production they do, they are still taking surplus value from the people who work for them.
> 
> I think it was all much simpler in Marx's day, when virtually all businesses were owned by individuals/families and the distinction between ownership and control wasn't there - now ownership is so vague with co-ops and PLCs, it gets harder to be exact in a generalised way.


John Lewis and Mondragon are at opposite ends of the scale wrt coops. At JL, they have a formula whereby the head earns 75x the salary of the least paid. At Mondragon, the formula varies between sections, but it's between 3x and 5x. Also, at Mondragon, not that many employees earn the lowest amount, and they have in-work training systems for everyone to climb to a better-paid position. The ratios are also decided democratically. 

But even John Lewis is better for its workers than the equivalent non-coop - say, M&S or Tesco. Slightly better pay, better holiday/sick/pension entitlement, and more say in how things are run at a low-down level at least (provision of rest room facilities, etc). And 75x is massively excessive, but less than M&S or Tesco. 

There is something going on here - very clearly in the case of Mondragon - whereby worker-owned businesses are better for their employees even where they operate in a capitalist market. The dynamic of exploitation is different. And such companies have an in-built competitive advantage over profit-seeking companies - they don't have to produce an excess that leaves the company.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 1, 2015)

Crispy said:


> In my thinking, this is where it comes unstuck, because "growth" in the capitalist system requires full engagement with it, or you'll be swamped by the real capitalists. It's swimming against the stream and can only really happen sustainably in specially protected pools.
> 
> (The details are missing here, but I think my intuition is correct?)



I think your intuition is very much correct. Workers' co-ops can only thrive/grow via exploiting (Marx meaning) the labour of their workforce (ie. through collective self-exploitation) and the value of that labour is determined socially (ie. by their cheapest competitor). 

(the contradictions between the idea and the material interests are, in essence, why a lot of worker co-ops fail...)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 1, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I think your intuition is very much correct. Workers' co-ops can only thrive/grow via exploiting (Marx meaning) the labour of their workforce (ie. through collective self-exploitation) and the value of that labour is determined socially (ie. by their cheapest competitor).
> 
> (the contradictions between the idea and the material interests are, in essence, why a lot of worker co-ops fail...)


But you are, at the very least, eliminating one layer of the exploitation along the supply chain. That may the best you can do as a group. So, for instance, if a company subcontracts work from a larger client company, that smaller company can as a whole be seen as an employee having their work exploited by the larger company. If the smaller company is also a profit-seeking enterprise, there is then an added layer of exploitation between it and its employees. If it is a coop, there isn't - the full value of the money secured from the client (which itself isn't as much as it ought to be) goes to the workers without being creamed off again.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 1, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> John Lewis and Mondragon are at opposite ends of the scale wrt coops. At JL, they have a formula whereby the head earns 75x the salary of the least paid. At Mondragon, the formula varies between sections, but it's between 3x and 5x. Also, at Mondragon, not that many employees earn the lowest amount, and they have in-work training systems for everyone to climb to a better-paid position. The ratios are also decided democratically.
> 
> But even John Lewis is better for its workers than the equivalent non-coop - say, M&S or Tesco. Slightly better pay, better holiday/sick/pension entitlement, and more say in how things are run at a low-down level at least (provision of rest room facilities, etc). And 75x is massively excessive, but less than M&S or Tesco.
> 
> There is something going on here - very clearly in the case of Mondragon - whereby worker-owned businesses are better for their employees even where they operate in a capitalist market. The dynamic of exploitation is different. And such companies have an in-built competitive advantage over profit-seeking companies - they don't have to produce an excess that leaves the company.



Something qualitatively different, do you think? Capitalist competition means that the value of a commodity is the standard necessary labour time involved in its production not that everybody involved received the same wage...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> 1.Mr & Mrs Smith buy a 3 bed council house in Southwark in 1984 for ~60K, now paid outriight sell it upon retirement in 2015 for ~600K. Buy a cottage in Norfolk for 200K and adds 400k to their retirement fund (to visit carribean golf courses)
> 2. Same as 1. except 400k goes to only child (30Yrs old) who buys a penthouse in Hackney for 300K (blows the remaining 100k on coke)
> 3. Mr and Mrs Jones, young couple buy 150K flat in Southwark in 2009 on mortgage. Mrs J gets pregnant with twins so they decide to move to the suburbs. Put house on market in 2015 and it's snapped up by a Russian oligarch (for his daughter who wants to grace London with her ballet skills) for 2 million. Mr & Mrs Jones shit their pants with joy and buy a house on the Isle of Thanet for 300K in the hope Farrage is elected.
> 
> Now if I'm getting this right from the feedback here, they all might be either capitalists or not capitalists (depending on where you draw certain lines).



Both couples bought properties for a specific purpose - to live in, *not* as investment vehicles.
While I don't agree with profiteering, especially from an essential like shelter, I don't see the profits made as capitalist behaviour, but rather as a result that comes about because of *capitalism*. The marketisation of a good invariably means alienation between use-value and exchange value. That people may, in a capitalist world, utilise that difference between values is rational behaviour.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 1, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The dynamic of exploitation is different. And such companies have an in-built competitive advantage over profit-seeking companies - they don't have to produce an excess that leaves the company.



There's plenty of profit seeking companies that have never paid any dividends to shareholders so no money leaves them either. Amazon, Yahoo, Berkshire-Hathaway, AIG, etc.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 1, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But you are, at the very least, eliminating one layer of the exploitation along the supply chain. That may the best you can do as a group. So, for instance, if a company subcontracts work from a larger client company, that smaller company can as a whole be seen as an employee having their work exploited by the larger company. If the smaller company is also a profit-seeking enterprise, there is then an added layer of exploitation between it and its employees. If it is a coop, there isn't - the full value of the money secured from the client (which itself isn't as much as it ought to be) goes to the workers without being creamed off again.



I could draw similar distinctions between other types of capitalist enterprise as well...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 1, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Something qualitatively different, do you think? .


Yes and no. Within the companies, there is something qualitatively different. But important aspects of the environment outside the company clearly are qualitatively the same. The relative importance of each aspect is of course a big question, but there are tangible results within successful larger coops that point to the former not being insignificant.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 1, 2015)

I struggle to marry the classes defined by Marx that are related to the means of production with a more classical approach to class defined by proximity to power.  If you place influence, entrenchment, access to power and so on at the centre of the definition then you can identify many individuals at the top end of the class structure that would surely be proletariat as defined by Marx.  Bankers could be an example -- they earn millions and many have incredible access as a consequence but they are still selling their labour, not extracting the surplus value of other peoples' labour.

To me it seems like quantum theory and relativity -- both useful models but there is a point that they collide and contradict each other.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2015)

The marxist def is those that _have _to sell their labour power to exist - not just those _that do_. Small detail but changes everything.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I struggle to marry the classes defined by Marx that are related to the means of production with a more classical approach to class defined by proximity to power.  If you place influence, entrenchment, access to power and so on at the centre of the definition then you can identify many individuals at the top end of the class structure that would surely be proletariat as defined by Marx.  Bankers could be an example -- they earn millions and many have incredible access as a consequence but they are still selling their labour, not extracting the surplus value of other peoples' labour.
> 
> To me it seems like quantum theory and relativity -- both useful models but there is a point that they collide and contradict each other.


The easiest way to determine your position wrt capital, imo, is to take a look at your bank account. So there are of course plenty in a petit-bourgeois position who earn far less than many salaried company people - their position of leverage within the system is weaker.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The marxist def is those that _have _to sell their labour power to exist - not just those _that do_. Small detail but changes everything.


I see.  Yes, that is important.

It still leaves a lot of grey space though.  What does "have to" really entail?  The banker with two kids in a £10000 a term school and a million pound mortgage -- does he have to sell his labour?  Or if we are saying that "have to" just means basic subsistence then surely nobody has to, because it is possible to basically exist without working.  

If neither extreme (both of which are ridiculous, I grant you), where does the middle ground lie?  A doctor* under the age of 50, for example, would likely need to work in order to avoid being below the bread line at _some_ point in his future even if he could afford to take this year off -- is he proletariat or not? Is he currently not but would be next year if he stopped working?  Does it actually matter?


*Yes, I know that doctors have some weird self-employment relationship with the NHS that actually makes them petit bourgeoisie but let's ignore that complication for now because they make a useful placeholder for "worker earning something about the £100,000 level".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 1, 2015)

It's complicated further by the need nowadays for any aspiring doctor to get into a large debt before securing that wage. In effect, they are borrowing as a business investment.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 1, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's complicated further by the need nowadays for any aspiring doctor to get into a large debt before securing that wage. In effect, they are borrowing as a business investment.


Yes, you're right.  I find it a bit mind-bending trying to connect the dots.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Yes, you're right.  I find it a bit mind-bending trying to connect the dots.


One of the most pernicious aspects of the abolition of free university education is that charging for education enshrines inequality as a moral good. It would be _morally wrong_ for a doctor to earn average wage given the enormous debt they have taken on to get to that position. It's a vile way of thinking that coopts people even more deeply into the system.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One of the most pernicious aspects of the abolition of free university education is that charging for education enshrines inequality as a moral good. It would be _morally wrong_ for a doctor to earn average wage given the enormous debt they have taken on to get to that position. It's a vile way of thinking that coopts people even more deeply into the system.


i think you'll find university education was - with some few exceptions - only free to ba/bsc and similar levels and people had to pay - or apply for funding for - most higher degrees. unless you know better, of course.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I see.  Yes, that is important.
> 
> It still leaves a lot of grey space though.  What does "have to" really entail?  The banker with two kids in a £10000 a term school and a million pound mortgage -- does he have to sell his labour?  Or if we are saying that "have to" just means basic subsistence then surely nobody has to, because it is possible to basically exist without working.
> 
> ...


The key then is not to look at individuals but look at labour-power and capital and the social relations between the two. Those members of the first group who don't have to work (in the sense of not dying if they don't) are in that position as they function for capital a) as a drag on wages b) to service the demand for labour-power when required. i.e even when not in work they are playing that same role for capital - they are in effect still selling their ability to labour just not directly and _have _to - they have no other option.

Whereas the latter can live off invested capital, accumulated resources etc if not in work - but that is also playing the role, still dependent on value production somewhere in the system. So the direct individual relation to work isn't the immediate key for either side - it's what role capital plays and what role labour power plays as side of a wider social relation. Reducing it to individuals is where this always goes wrong and you end up with nonsense about brown sauce or something. Relations not strict 'definitions'.

Another place this goes daft is when people say this is singularly about economics and deny that class does have a cultural aspect (as opposed to the one i mentioned above which tends to be purely cultural). Cultural practices are the result of material factors, your place in the capitalist system has material effects and leads to different ways of experiencing understand and approaching how society works i.e culture is related to class.  This is how those with more social power often come to dominate left groups or networks - through a purely economic flattening of the w/c down to one homogeneous group with the same interests across the whole of it.

Of course, many have been aware of this for a long time and have come up with many ways to cover what are usually called 'gaps' (not by me) - from stuff like introducing a order-giver/order taker component or variations on this - Erik Olin Wright is doing loads on this.

As  self-employment has been mentioned, i would really urge a read of this - a classic demonstration of how to look at the class and social relations i suggested above:



> With the asset stripping destruction of a lot of factory-based production, aided and abetted by financial concerns in a triumphalist City of London, side by side with the tendency towards hollowed-out companies in building, engineering and what have you and who no longer had many permanent workers on their pay roll, many laid-off workers were FORCED (more or less) to become self-employed; to acquire the services of an accountant, to buy their own fixed capital (trucks, small workshop and what have you). Well, it was either that or welfare and the prospect of constant harassment and punishment disguised as ridiculous pseuso-job training or slightly more lenient forms of workfare than experienced in America. It was basically Hobson's Choice. This mini-mass of intentionally pseudo-individualised people became a veritable army of »reluctant entrepreneurs« as we began to call them. It marked the petite-bourgeoisification of the proletariat. Or so it seemed...





> It equally marked the proletarianization of the petite bourgeoisie. A lot of these who were forced into this position weren't that enamoured of it from the word go and actually quite fearful of the step. They had reason to be. They often had to work a lot harder, were »on call« with a mobile ringing day and night, worried into sleeplessness over insurance liabilities and costs if anything happened which previously their employers would have assumed responsibility for. Weekends spent on learning and doing maintenance to your machinery because you didn't want to spend the spondoolies on getting it serviced by a company or by another working stiff like yourself etc. Then, no sick pay, no holiday pay and no perks like staying at a hotel when engaged in »out« work - expenses which you once could have fiddled. Though you'd get more money (and often, over short periods, a lot more) if things went well, at other times you were up shit creek without a paddle and with debts mounting up, on the brink of a nervous breakdown. At best, compensations for the lack of any real life you might have once hoped for, sublimated in endless package holidays and the aestheticisation of domesticity with the repro antique clock in the right place on the mock Adam fireplace (»A Dam« fireplace as George put it in the »George and Mildred« TV series.) It's not much compensation for an absent life.


----------



## Patteran (Apr 2, 2015)

That description of self-employed freelancers, reluctant entrepreneurs, petite-bourgoisified proletarians (ha!) or vice versa, seems spot on. I don't think I've come across that wildcat source before.

Thanks again butchersapron for the continued access to your useful & resourceful mental & digital filing system. And everyone else here who takes the time to explain & sort appropriate analytical links.

(Any chance you'll smoke weed & play Xbox for a bit or learn the mouth organ & let me catch up with some of this suggested reading? I've two dozen tabs open, fifteen books unfinished, & a desktop covered with snide pdfs about Castoriadis & council communism & social construction, all from u75 suggestions.)


----------



## CNT36 (Apr 2, 2015)

Patteran said:


> That description of self-employed freelancers, reluctant entrepreneurs, petite-bourgoisified proletarians (ha!) or vice versa, seems spot on. I don't think I've come across that wildcat source before.
> 
> Thanks again butchersapron for the continued access to your useful & resourceful mental & digital filing system. And everyone else here who takes the time to explain & sort appropriate analytical links.
> 
> (Any chance you'll smoke weed & play Xbox for a bit or learn the mouth organ & let me catch up with some of this suggested reading? I've two dozen tabs open, fifteen books unfinished, & a desktop covered with snide pdfs about Castoriadis & council communism & social construction, all from u75 suggestions.)


I gave up and created a new favorite files full of stuff I'll probably never get around to reading.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2015)

Patteran said:


> That description of self-employed freelancers, reluctant entrepreneurs, petite-bourgoisified proletarians (ha!) or vice versa, seems spot on. I don't think I've come across that wildcat source before.
> 
> Thanks again butchersapron for the continued access to your useful & resourceful mental & digital filing system. And everyone else here who takes the time to explain & sort appropriate analytical links.
> 
> (Any chance you'll smoke weed & play Xbox for a bit or learn the mouth organ & let me catch up with some of this suggested reading? I've two dozen tabs open, fifteen books unfinished, & a desktop covered with snide pdfs about Castoriadis & council communism & social construction, all from u75 suggestions.)


Cricket season starts in 10 days - that normally takes me out of the game most of the week. As a personal favour to you though, i shall be concentrating on drinking rum later today.


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 3, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Did they buy the house with the only intention being to add a porch in order to double the value of the property and then sell it on for a profit, or did they buy the house to live in, add a porch because they wanted one and then sold it on for more than they bought it for?
> 1st case = capitalist / property developer
> 2nd case = not capitalist.
> 
> ...


Thanks BigTom. This is a really helpful post for someone like me who'd never read up on this before and doesn't understand the terminology, context and, implications to real world scenarios.
I'd still contest that last point you made (in bold) isn't a grey area though. On personal experience just about everyone I know who bought into the property boom talks in terms of "profit" or "loss". Maybe it's just their ignorance too or a sign of how outdated Marxist terminology' has become in the accelerated (uncontested) "capitalist" world(?).
It may just be a mind-set thing.


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 3, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The key then is not to look at individuals but look at labour-power and capital and the social relations between the two. Those members of the first group who don't have to work (in the sense of not dying if they don't) are in that position as they function for capital a) as a drag on wages b) to service the demand for labour-power when required. i.e even when not in work they are playing that same role for capital - they are in effect still selling their ability to labour just not directly and _have _to - they have no other option.
> 
> Whereas the latter can live off invested capital, accumulated resources etc if not in work - but that is also playing the role, still dependent on value production somewhere in the system. So the direct individual relation to work isn't the immediate key for either side - it's what role capital plays and what role labour power plays as side of a wider social relation. Reducing it to individuals is where this always goes wrong and you end up with nonsense about brown sauce or something. Relations not strict 'definitions'.
> 
> ...



That's a great article.  Thanks butchersapron,  kabbes BigTom VP ect much, much clearer now since the last couple of pages.


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 3, 2015)

xenon said:


> I've not read Capital but it seems pretty obvious that if you engage in the acquisition of property, production of goods or provision of services in order to make a profit. i.e. seak to acrew the difference between the costs you bare and the price you charge in that activity, you are a Capitlist. This definition captures a lot of people of course and it's to my mind, not cenonamous with being a terrible bastard. Cooperatives still fall under that definition I think. But yeah, see point 1. Course there will be many other motives for people engaged in profit seaking enterprise but you can't sensibly deny it's not an active Capitilistic role to take on. Obviously there's a difference in impact in the activities of my local shop keeper and HSBC. The fundamental rationale for operating both those businesses with respect to gaining profit is the same though isn't it?
> 
> Genuinne question actually. Seems so to me taking a simplistic sort of first principle look at 2 extremes.


Thanks for the use of the term cooperative... been on the tip of my tongue the whole time but collective kept coming out


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I struggle to marry the classes defined by Marx that are related to the means of production with a more classical approach to class defined by proximity to power.  If you place influence, entrenchment, access to power and so on at the centre of the definition then you can identify many individuals at the top end of the class structure that would surely be proletariat as defined by Marx.  Bankers could be an example -- they earn millions and many have incredible access as a consequence but they are still selling their labour, not extracting the surplus value of other peoples' labour.
> 
> To me it seems like quantum theory and relativity -- both useful models but there is a point that they collide and contradict each other.


where is power?


----------



## BigTom (Apr 4, 2015)

pocketscience said:


> Thanks BigTom. This is a really helpful post for someone like me who'd never read up on this before and doesn't understand the terminology, context and, implications to real world scenarios.
> I'd still contest that last point you made (in bold) isn't a grey area though. On personal experience just about everyone I know who bought into the property boom talks in terms of "profit" or "loss". Maybe it's just their ignorance too or a sign of how outdated Marxist terminology' has become in the accelerated (uncontested) "capitalist" world(?).
> It may just be a mind-set thing.



Butchersapron's posts take what I was saying to a deeper level of analysis, where it becomes about relationships to capital rather than the simple individual positions that I laid out. I'm sticking to the 6th form stuff, BA is more degree level 

I'm not sure what you mean by "bought into the property boom" tbh. If these are people who are investing money in property rather than in shares or gold or something then yes, they are being capitalist.

If they are people who have bought a property instead of renting and are then expecting/hoping/wanting it to rise in value and seeing their purchase as an asset to be profited from then they fools, as they can't make any profit until they realise their asset and that means death generally (although you can downsize or take out mortgages to realise (some of) the value of the asset. They are displaying capitalist behaviour here though. (iirc none of your xamples were like this imo - they all bought and then sold finding the price rose, in two of them the purchasers weren't the beneficiaries of the sale either).

Going back to the marxist stuff, anyone who owns a house, owns capital. But it's not productive capital, in that it's not used for business. Nobody is employed in the house to do a job that the owners of the house profit from (even if they have a cleaner, they aren't profiting from that cleaner). If they rent the house or have a lodger, then they are using that capital to produce profit. Lanlords would generally fall into the bourgeouis categorie, though ones who rent out a room might be better thought of as petit bourgeoisie
Having said that, anyone who owns a house - especially if they own outright - is clearly in a privileged position compared to those who don't (if nothing else, it's a secure home, which you basically can't get anymore renting). On some ways I think that owning your home could put you into the petit bourgeoisie category (which also fits with the working/middle/upper class type categorisation), even if you work as an employee. I dunno/can't remember if Marx had anything to say about this.

It's not a big issue though really - owning or renting, how does it change your position in relationship to capital? Whether you'd put them in one class or another doesn't really matter. Do they own/control capital, do they use this to extract profit from those who don't? Do they act in such a way as to further the interests of those who want to use capital to extract profit? 
With a home, you don't use the capital to extract profit, does owning a home further the interests of capital? I dunno, maybe, but not massively, and how I think it does (home ownership = individual property as the basis for family life, rather than collective property, and that assists you to think in an individualistic way which is useful for capitalism, rather than collectively, which is not so useful) is sort of tangential to the main question. 

As a bit of an aside, I think that the perception of homes as financial assets is one of the worst things to happen to the UK housing market. I'm too young to remember pre-Thatcher and whether it was like this, but it's certainly something Thatcher wanted if not created, a way of changing the soul through economics. Asset markets are fucked because as things rise in value, this causes demand to rise, causing prices to rise, causing demand to rise and so on until it becomes hugely overvalued and then pop goes the bubble, prices fall so people sell so prices fall so more people sell so prices fall more etc.. fucked. And for us to let such an essential thing to be in that situation is also fucked.

There's definitely a cultural thing going on, thinking about the people I know who have bought housing, some are concerned about the price of their house, others not so much, maybe helped that the market here has been flat for the past 6 years and most people I know who have bought have bought in that time or just before the crash (due to my age rather than anything else, just the time when enough people I know had reached an age they wanted/were able to buy). Those who are concerned, I've never heard talk about profit or loss maybe because they all know that when they sell their property it'll be to buy another one and that other property will have gone up or down in price. I'm sure people would be concerned if prices started falling and they were going into negative equity though.


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 10, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Butchersapron's posts take what I was saying to a deeper level of analysis, where it becomes about relationships to capital rather than the simple individual positions that I laid out. I'm sticking to the 6th form stuff, BA is more degree level
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "bought into the property boom" tbh. If these are people who are investing money in property rather than in shares or gold or something then yes, they are being capitalist.
> 
> ...


Yeah, it's that cultural thing I'm talking about - I referred to it earlier as the mind-set thing. I'm left with the feeling that most home owners fall into a grey zone between the cases you describe in the first paragraph.

Over the years, I've found most home-owners or would-be home-owners talk in terms of a "better long term business case" when owning rather than renting (I usually switch off when the Gordon Gecko "asset", "positive/ negative equity" jargon starts)

I doubt any of my old school mates in the late 80's/ early 90's who were starting out on the ladder, considered that the prices would rise so astronomically.
Their typical scenario was that they started out by buying a recently purchased council property in SE London around the end of the eighties.
Through renovation (pebble-dashing, porch extensions, room knock-through etc) they'd get more than double their original outlay when they sold in the mid-nineties. Then they'd buy their dream (semi) detached house in the then suburbs (just inside M25) and do that up to the hilt. Now that's worth 3 times the value they bought it for. Loadsamoney!!!!!!!!!
Fast forward to today, half of them are going off alarming because they (typically) have 3 kids in their late teens/ early twenties now who need to move out but, there's no affordable housing.
As you say, fools. They've done this to themselves (and their own).
The worst thing though, with no hint of irony, they look for someone else to blame for the shit creek that the property sector's up other than themselves.

... and that's what I saw earlier here on this thread (maybe wrongly?) - the indifference to the plight of the renter (Garage Man) and the going out of the way to unnecessarily and irrelevantly imply that as a small business he's more likely somehow be exploitative, smacked more of a Nicolas Van Hoogstraten tactic than Karl Marx theory imo


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2015)

kabbes you mentioned above proximity to power. where is power? how do i get close to it?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 11, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> kabbes you mentioned above proximity to power. where is power? how do i get close to it?









Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Nice one (Apr 11, 2015)

power corrupts, absolute power makes your lightbulbs turn on


----------



## coley (Jul 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> where is power?



In thon white square thingy just above the skirting board.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2016)

coley said:


> In thon white square thingy just above the skirting board.


Yeh so one tine for status, one for authority, one for influence like in weber's tripartite notion of power I suppose


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh so one tine for status, one for authority, one for influence like in weber's tripartite notion of power I suppose


two pin plugs means no influence tine, a strange metaphor for brexit etc

not sure what round pins signifies


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 9, 2016)

This thread is 27 pages long and no doubt I'm going to look like a massive arse after.

So I watched some commentary on the fuck parade where they stood around that Cereal Killer cafe and jeered. 

Now I fully get that a) gentrification is a reality and b) it's shit.

But it seemed that picking on a couple of guys who fit an amusing social profile, just for running a gimmicky cafe, was really a case of picking on low hanging fruit, and mobhanded.

Now I'll be the first to admit if I've got this wrong, but surely they are not the problem. They aren't Abercrombie and Fitch. 
It makes me a bit uncomfortable when I hear, and again maybe i'm wrong, to see people like this getting bullied. Maybe they are a couple of proper little cunts, I don't know. But surely this is all pandering to stereotypes of the working class that the bourgeoisie hold: that the working class don't need or can't appreciate culture and only want to run 'traditional' vocations etc. 

Or am i missing the point?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 9, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> This thread is 27 pages long and no doubt I'm going to look like a massive arse after.
> 
> So I watched some commentary on the fuck parade where they stood around that Cereal Killer cafe and jeered.
> 
> ...



A cafe selling breakfast cereal to twats is not what I would call 'culture' personally. And it's rich twats doing stupid shit like that which is helping make it impossible for ordinary folk to start a business doing something with a point to it. Working class people are never going to be able to compete with these trust-fund wankbuckets selling jam jars full of gin to other trust-fund wankbuckets.

But I don't blame the hipster kids themselves. I blame the baby boomers for raising so many spoiled, ignorant, vain and entitled children in the first place, and for then bankrolling their stupidity with the money they've hoarded via the property market at the expense of future generations of working class people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> This thread is 27 pages long and no doubt I'm going to look like a massive arse after.
> 
> So I watched some commentary on the fuck parade where they stood around that Cereal Killer cafe and jeered.
> 
> ...


They are a couple of shits, and tbh businesses like that act as both cheerleaders for and accelerators of gentrification through being gimmicky, through displacing more socially useful businesses and through hastening the pace of change in the neighbourhood. A vile, vile enterprise. And it's not what I'd call culture.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> They are a couple of shits, and tbh businesses like that act as both cheerleaders for and accelerators of gentrification through being gimmicky, through displacing more socially useful businesses and through hastening the pace of change in the neighbourhood. A vile, vile enterprise. And it's not what I'd call culture.


Have people here had dealings with them? I don't want to just dismiss them because they fit an admittedly ridiculous social profile, I'd rather have good reason. 

Not saying there aren't good reasons or that people haven't. I'm just curious. I don't live in what most would identify as a working class area, so I don't have much experience dealing with these issues directly. 

You both make good points though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> Have people here had dealings with them? I don't want to just dismiss them because they fit an admittedly ridiculous social profile, I'd rather have good reason.
> 
> Not saying there aren't good reasons or that people haven't. I'm just curious. I don't live in what most would identify as a working class area, so I don't have much experience dealing with these issues directly.
> 
> You both make good points though.


I haven't had dealings with them but that's because I find it such a flimsy premise. There's cafes do a decent range of breakfast foods, this is a niche business catering (in its loosest sense) for people with less sense than money who refuse to go to the preexisting cafes nearby which cater for the preexisting population


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 9, 2016)

Funnily enough I was just thinking about this thread the other day. The garage is now gone, replaced by a big garage-shaped bar - in fact the entire industrial estate is now devoid of any actual industry, it's all bars and galleries and such. I'll take a snap next time I'm around there. 

And while I'm sure as individuals the owners won't necessarily be arseholes, fact is once a couple of sets of them come in and declare an area safe for gentrification it's open season for whoever holds the lease on a given building to ratchet up rent prices and get in a higher-paying sort of clientele. So what d'you do? Just let them get on with it and move yourself further and further out of town? Kick off whenever a set of hipsters set up shop and be accused of bullying? No easy answers really.


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 9, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> This thread is 27 pages long and no doubt I'm going to look like a massive arse after.
> 
> So I watched some commentary on the fuck parade where they stood around that Cereal Killer cafe and jeered.
> 
> ...


My perception at the time was that Class War had no intention of presenting Cereal Killers as the 'face' of gentrification in Brick Lane. They were simply a target of opportunity on the Fuck Parade route. The Cereal Killers being no fools promptly generated a lot of 'poor us' publicity around the theme of being wictimised by the nasty rough anarchists. Many campaigning groups would have immediately gone into PR bullshit mode at this point. Class War didn't - they enthusiastically took up the idea that 'hipsters' had indeed been a primary target all along and ran with it. But then Class War aren't silly. Unlike some of their 'supporters' who promptly set about arguing that Cereal Killers/Hipsters were indeed an advance guard of gentrification in Brick Lane. Which is complete and utter bollocks.

I think I can speak for many other residents of Tower Hamlets when I say how much we absolutely LOVE having people come and explain 'gentrification' to us.

Cereal Killers are, in my opinion, obnoxious wankers who in a just world wouldn't simply have their window stickered but be dragged out and given a good bath and a shave. But Brick Lane hasn't been any kind of local high street for decades. The top half where Cereal Killers are located was 'camdenized' a quarter of a century ago and since then large numbers of businesses catering to artists, bohemians, fashionistas, tourists and even some local people have come and gone and been replaced by others. It is no more 'hipsterised' today than it has been since the turn of the century. If anything much of it is looking a little down at heel.

There are other parts of London where obnoxious 'hipster' entrepreneurs are indeed 'accelerators for gentrification' - Brick Lane isn't one of them. Not only has that ship sailed, but current planning battle lines between city developers, conservationists and the considerable local investment in Brick Lane as a tourist destination mean that it's future is not going to be determined by whatever arseholes start small businesses in it.

However that's no reason not to point out to exceedingly annoying twats how annoyed you are.


----------



## salem (Jan 27, 2017)

I've popped into this thread a few times, but can't be arsed to read 27 pages to see if it's been covered already. If so sorry.

Anyway, is this place now 'Mick's Garage'?

Mick's Garage - London nightclub



> Mick's Garage is one of East London's latest discoveries, boasting a beautiful open-plan space for 500 people with a 110 cap Mezzanine level overlooking the main floor. Outdoor space is a-plenty with seating for customers to enjoy.
> 
> From the founders of Crate Brewery, this fully functioning warehouse space is transformed into a multi-use events space. It has hosted club nights, live shows, book launches, film screenings, markets and much more; becoming one of the most sought after venues in East London.



I hope that this bloke wasn't kicked out and his name used against his will? Is he a part of the venture now?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 27, 2017)

address looks the same


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 27, 2017)

Looks like a pretty good result for the community.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2017)

salem said:


> I've popped into this thread a few times, but can't be arsed to read 27 pages to see if it's been covered already. If so sorry.
> 
> Anyway, is this place now 'Mick's Garage'?
> 
> ...


It's the hipster way to keep auld signs in a doubtless ironick way


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Looks like a pretty good result for the community.


Pa  wash your mouth out with soap


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2017)

From



to



"Hosted by city lead Sorcha Harriman-Smith"


----------



## treelover (Jan 27, 2017)

How much further can this crap go?


----------



## salem (Jan 27, 2017)

I'm hoping there was some sort of resolution as they're using the name in a kind of chummy way which seems at odds with the earlier situation.


----------

