North/South divide

18 May 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
thank you for a really illuminating debate blue/guls/away.
kev has just thrown the difference in working conditions and the co operative nature of industries like mining.

It's interesting, but again it's not the whole story. The butty system in mining, where the butty would negotiate the rate for a section of the pit with the owner and then distribute the profits to his workmates on the job is directly analogous to share-cropping or other forms of profit sharing in pre-industrial farming. Tin mining had similar systems, so did slate in North Wales (Raph Samuel is a good source on this again.)
It's an unfashionable area of history now, but this area, where the dividing lines in work got sharpened, where butties got pushed aside in favour of employers directly employing labour and foremen, is at the heart of understanding the paradox of why it was often better off men with assets and status who ended up at the forefront of disputes. Zephaniah Williams, the Blackwood who led the chartists to Newport in 1839 alongside the cretinous John Frost, was not a manic street preacher like WIlliam Jones, the Pontypool drunkard who got half the chartist force lost between Pontypool and Newport (which is quite an achievement when you think about it...) ZW was a successful butty, a mining contractor who invested his profits in a pub for his wife while preaching sedition and worker's rights. He wasn't a gentle man either - in 1833 he blew up a mine belonging to a landowner who refused to pay him for work done by his gang. If he'd lived in the countryside he'd have been a gangmaster on large arable farms - he livedin the valleys so he was a butty.
But then dont you hit a problem if a revolutionary movement is led by the more affulent,in that they have a vested interest in maintaining the staus quo?
Or to use a more modern example,if a party is led by middle class graduates their knowledge of the issues facing the working class becomes academic,and inbued with their own desire to maintain the things which benifit them.
The difference being, after 5 years we can remove them

18 May 2010

The revolution will not be led by some over educated academic the revolution will be led by a mob of sink-estate sociopaths......climb down from your white charger there's a 10 year old golf gti with a dodgy exhaust coming your way

18 May 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
The revolution will not be led by some over educated academic the revolution will be led by a mob of sink-estate sociopaths......climb down from your white charger there's a 10 year old golf gti with a dodgy exhaust coming your way

The Tooting popular front....

18 May 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
The revolution will not be led by some over educated academic the revolution will be led by a mob of sink-estate sociopaths......climb down from your white charger there's a 10 year old golf gti with a dodgy exhaust coming your way

in that case it will only be classed as a riot innocent

18 May 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
thank you for a really illuminating debate blue/guls/away.
kev has just thrown the difference in working conditions and the co operative nature of industries like mining.

It's interesting, but again it's not the whole story. The butty system in mining, where the butty would negotiate the rate for a section of the pit with the owner and then distribute the profits to his workmates on the job is directly analogous to share-cropping or other forms of profit sharing in pre-industrial farming. Tin mining had similar systems, so did slate in North Wales (Raph Samuel is a good source on this again.)
It's an unfashionable area of history now, but this area, where the dividing lines in work got sharpened, where butties got pushed aside in favour of employers directly employing labour and foremen, is at the heart of understanding the paradox of why it was often better off men with assets and status who ended up at the forefront of disputes. Zephaniah Williams, the Blackwood who led the chartists to Newport in 1839 alongside the cretinous John Frost, was not a manic street preacher like WIlliam Jones, the Pontypool drunkard who got half the chartist force lost between Pontypool and Newport (which is quite an achievement when you think about it...) ZW was a successful butty, a mining contractor who invested his profits in a pub for his wife while preaching sedition and worker's rights. He wasn't a gentle man either - in 1833 he blew up a mine belonging to a landowner who refused to pay him for work done by his gang. If he'd lived in the countryside he'd have been a gangmaster on large arable farms - he livedin the valleys so he was a butty.
But then dont you hit a problem if a revolutionary movement is led by the more affulent,in that they have a vested interest in maintaining the staus quo?
Or to use a more modern example,if a party is led by middle class graduates their knowledge of the issues facing the working class becomes academic,and inbued with their own desire to maintain the things which benifit them.
That is the challenge, but here's the rub. The butty's wealth lies in knowledge and skill, not property and capital. That social capital is only worth anything if the workers will work with him. SO he's likely to side with the workers, because they're where his interests lie.
That's a world away from a political party led by people who're not representative of the class they represent, and who end up conforming to the iron law of oligarchy

18 May 2010

Quote by awayman
thank you for a really illuminating debate blue/guls/away.
kev has just thrown the difference in working conditions and the co operative nature of industries like mining.

It's interesting, but again it's not the whole story. The butty system in mining, where the butty would negotiate the rate for a section of the pit with the owner and then distribute the profits to his workmates on the job is directly analogous to share-cropping or other forms of profit sharing in pre-industrial farming. Tin mining had similar systems, so did slate in North Wales (Raph Samuel is a good source on this again.)
It's an unfashionable area of history now, but this area, where the dividing lines in work got sharpened, where butties got pushed aside in favour of employers directly employing labour and foremen, is at the heart of understanding the paradox of why it was often better off men with assets and status who ended up at the forefront of disputes. Zephaniah Williams, the Blackwood who led the chartists to Newport in 1839 alongside the cretinous John Frost, was not a manic street preacher like WIlliam Jones, the Pontypool drunkard who got half the chartist force lost between Pontypool and Newport (which is quite an achievement when you think about it...) ZW was a successful butty, a mining contractor who invested his profits in a pub for his wife while preaching sedition and worker's rights. He wasn't a gentle man either - in 1833 he blew up a mine belonging to a landowner who refused to pay him for work done by his gang. If he'd lived in the countryside he'd have been a gangmaster on large arable farms - he livedin the valleys so he was a butty.
But then dont you hit a problem if a revolutionary movement is led by the more affulent,in that they have a vested interest in maintaining the staus quo?
Or to use a more modern example,if a party is led by middle class graduates their knowledge of the issues facing the working class becomes academic,and inbued with their own desire to maintain the things which benifit them.
That is the challenge, but here's the rub. The butty's wealth lies in knowledge and skill, not property and capital. That social capital is only worth anything if the workers will work with him. SO he's likely to side with the workers, because they're where his interests lie.
That's a world away from a political party led by people who're not representative of the class they represent, and who end up conforming to the iron law of oligarchy
And if the whole world was run by the poorest people in the world, they would not remain the poorest people for long as that is human nature
Another thing a very wise man once said to me; If you took all the money in the world and shared it out evenly today, by tomorrow some would have 3 times what they were given and many would have none left at all.

18 May 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
thank you for a really illuminating debate blue/guls/away.
kev has just thrown the difference in working conditions and the co operative nature of industries like mining.

It's interesting, but again it's not the whole story. The butty system in mining, where the butty would negotiate the rate for a section of the pit with the owner and then distribute the profits to his workmates on the job is directly analogous to share-cropping or other forms of profit sharing in pre-industrial farming. Tin mining had similar systems, so did slate in North Wales (Raph Samuel is a good source on this again.)
It's an unfashionable area of history now, but this area, where the dividing lines in work got sharpened, where butties got pushed aside in favour of employers directly employing labour and foremen, is at the heart of understanding the paradox of why it was often better off men with assets and status who ended up at the forefront of disputes. Zephaniah Williams, the Blackwood who led the chartists to Newport in 1839 alongside the cretinous John Frost, was not a manic street preacher like WIlliam Jones, the Pontypool drunkard who got half the chartist force lost between Pontypool and Newport (which is quite an achievement when you think about it...) ZW was a successful butty, a mining contractor who invested his profits in a pub for his wife while preaching sedition and worker's rights. He wasn't a gentle man either - in 1833 he blew up a mine belonging to a landowner who refused to pay him for work done by his gang. If he'd lived in the countryside he'd have been a gangmaster on large arable farms - he livedin the valleys so he was a butty.
But then dont you hit a problem if a revolutionary movement is led by the more affulent,in that they have a vested interest in maintaining the staus quo?
Or to use a more modern example,if a party is led by middle class graduates their knowledge of the issues facing the working class becomes academic,and inbued with their own desire to maintain the things which benifit them.
That is the challenge, but here's the rub. The butty's wealth lies in knowledge and skill, not property and capital. That social capital is only worth anything if the workers will work with him. SO he's likely to side with the workers, because they're where his interests lie.
That's a world away from a political party led by people who're not representative of the class they represent, and who end up conforming to the iron law of oligarchy
And if the whole world was run by the poorest people in the world, they would not remain the poorest people for long as that is human nature
Another thing a very wise man once said to me; If you took all the money in the world and shared it out evenly today, by tomorrow some would have 3 times what they were given and many would have none left at all.
There is no such thing as human nature. It's a lie invented by greedy men to justify their avarice.

18 May 2010

Quote by awayman
thank you for a really illuminating debate blue/guls/away.
kev has just thrown the difference in working conditions and the co operative nature of industries like mining.

It's interesting, but again it's not the whole story. The butty system in mining, where the butty would negotiate the rate for a section of the pit with the owner and then distribute the profits to his workmates on the job is directly analogous to share-cropping or other forms of profit sharing in pre-industrial farming. Tin mining had similar systems, so did slate in North Wales (Raph Samuel is a good source on this again.)
It's an unfashionable area of history now, but this area, where the dividing lines in work got sharpened, where butties got pushed aside in favour of employers directly employing labour and foremen, is at the heart of understanding the paradox of why it was often better off men with assets and status who ended up at the forefront of disputes. Zephaniah Williams, the Blackwood who led the chartists to Newport in 1839 alongside the cretinous John Frost, was not a manic street preacher like WIlliam Jones, the Pontypool drunkard who got half the chartist force lost between Pontypool and Newport (which is quite an achievement when you think about it...) ZW was a successful butty, a mining contractor who invested his profits in a pub for his wife while preaching sedition and worker's rights. He wasn't a gentle man either - in 1833 he blew up a mine belonging to a landowner who refused to pay him for work done by his gang. If he'd lived in the countryside he'd have been a gangmaster on large arable farms - he livedin the valleys so he was a butty.
But then dont you hit a problem if a revolutionary movement is led by the more affulent,in that they have a vested interest in maintaining the staus quo?
Or to use a more modern example,if a party is led by middle class graduates their knowledge of the issues facing the working class becomes academic,and inbued with their own desire to maintain the things which benifit them.
That is the challenge, but here's the rub. The butty's wealth lies in knowledge and skill, not property and capital. That social capital is only worth anything if the workers will work with him. SO he's likely to side with the workers, because they're where his interests lie.
That's a world away from a political party led by people who're not representative of the class they represent, and who end up conforming to the iron law of oligarchy
And if the whole world was run by the poorest people in the world, they would not remain the poorest people for long as that is human nature
Another thing a very wise man once said to me; If you took all the money in the world and shared it out evenly today, by tomorrow some would have 3 times what they were given and many would have none left at all.
There is no such thing as human nature. It's a lie invented by greedy men to justify their avarice.
Well I do not agree, I believe it is human nature, to provide for your self and family. I firmly believe there is a strong inbuilt instinct to provide for ones family. A throw back to the hunter gatherer
Also, I have no problem with greedy men, if they have worked for what they have got and earned it fare and square then they are fine by me

18 May 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
thank you for a really illuminating debate blue/guls/away.
kev has just thrown the difference in working conditions and the co operative nature of industries like mining.

It's interesting, but again it's not the whole story. The butty system in mining, where the butty would negotiate the rate for a section of the pit with the owner and then distribute the profits to his workmates on the job is directly analogous to share-cropping or other forms of profit sharing in pre-industrial farming. Tin mining had similar systems, so did slate in North Wales (Raph Samuel is a good source on this again.)
It's an unfashionable area of history now, but this area, where the dividing lines in work got sharpened, where butties got pushed aside in favour of employers directly employing labour and foremen, is at the heart of understanding the paradox of why it was often better off men with assets and status who ended up at the forefront of disputes. Zephaniah Williams, the Blackwood who led the chartists to Newport in 1839 alongside the cretinous John Frost, was not a manic street preacher like WIlliam Jones, the Pontypool drunkard who got half the chartist force lost between Pontypool and Newport (which is quite an achievement when you think about it...) ZW was a successful butty, a mining contractor who invested his profits in a pub for his wife while preaching sedition and worker's rights. He wasn't a gentle man either - in 1833 he blew up a mine belonging to a landowner who refused to pay him for work done by his gang. If he'd lived in the countryside he'd have been a gangmaster on large arable farms - he livedin the valleys so he was a butty.
But then dont you hit a problem if a revolutionary movement is led by the more affulent,in that they have a vested interest in maintaining the staus quo?
Or to use a more modern example,if a party is led by middle class graduates their knowledge of the issues facing the working class becomes academic,and inbued with their own desire to maintain the things which benifit them.
That is the challenge, but here's the rub. The butty's wealth lies in knowledge and skill, not property and capital. That social capital is only worth anything if the workers will work with him. SO he's likely to side with the workers, because they're where his interests lie.
That's a world away from a political party led by people who're not representative of the class they represent, and who end up conforming to the iron law of oligarchy
And if the whole world was run by the poorest people in the world, they would not remain the poorest people for long as that is human nature
Another thing a very wise man once said to me; If you took all the money in the world and shared it out evenly today, by tomorrow some would have 3 times what they were given and many would have none left at all.
There is no such thing as human nature. It's a lie invented by greedy men to justify their avarice.
Well I do not agree, I believe it is human nature, to provide for your self and family. I firmly believe there is a strong inbuilt instinct to provide for ones family. A throw back to the hunter gatherer
Also, I have no problem with greedy men, if they have worked for what they have got and earned it fare and square then they are fine by me
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
all unless of course you have the benefit system worked then you just sign twice weekly
and look for the tenants extra offers

18 May 2010

Show me a self made man and I'll look for his employees to ask them how much he really did

18 May 2010

Actually I think he meant twice monthly....you know to get ya benefit money.

19 May 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Actually I think he meant twice monthly....you know to get ya benefit money.

i wouldnt know never having claimed jsa.
However i do know that where kev works they dont sign twice weekly.
sorry just goes to show how many times i`ve been to the dhss/dwp :lol2:

19 May 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Show me a self made man and I'll look for his employees to ask them how much he really did

show me an employee that works for his money and i `ll show you another ten that think their just owed it wink

19 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
Show me a self made man and I'll look for his employees to ask them how much he really did

show me an employee that works for his money and i `ll show you another ten that think their just owed it wink

And therein lies the rub