Most important event in British History

14 Aug 2011

Quote by Trevaunance

Yes.
I am, after all, a socialist.

ok I'm not on a firm footing here, but as I understand socialism its most extreme conclusion is communism.
How can an equal society ever work when by it's very nature somebody has to be in charge therefore creating a minimum of a two stage hierarchy and social structure?
My understanding of Communisim isn't about everyone having the same role and therefore no leaders and no anything else in fact - you end up having to do everything for yourself cos no-one is 'below' you. That patently won'rt work. I did hear the comment once that communism doesn't work in groups larger than 3 - I'd disagree and say it's 2.
My understanding of it is that Communism means everyone helps each other. Leaders lead, shit shovelers shovel shit etc etc etc. The difference between that and Capitalism is financial. You don't get paid to do it - you do it cos that's your chosen role. Producers supply everyone else, ensuring that everyone gets at least what they need. In fact, the best example of this kind of communism is Star Trek. You do a job cos you want to and are good enough. You don't get paid for it but you get what you need.
Sadly, this only works if everyone is more altruistic than selfish - and humans simply AREN'T. There are always some - and it doesn't take many - who want to control, own, etc etc etc. A cummunist government isn't automatically any more friendly to its population than a dictatorship.
It all hinges on what exactly is to be equal. It should be availability of basics and opportunity. There is nothing wrong woth people having different incomes and life-syles so long as a) no-one has less than a reasonable one and b) anyone who wishes to improve theirs can by education and/or work.

17 Aug 2011

Britain invaded so many Countries, and left landmark buildings and laws.
They also robbed some of those same Countries of vital minerals, stoll the wealth and left the natural inhabitants to struggle after they fled.
Before you start posting negative replies, I was born in the UK and have travelled the world.
Britain and It's history....
All these invasions and conquers have permitted the safe transition of those same people into this great Country who have to endure racism from people that don't even know history!

17 Aug 2011

Quote by Trevaunance
Yes.
I am, after all, a socialist.

ok I'm not on a firm footing here, but as I understand socialism its most extreme conclusion is communism.
How can an equal society ever work when by it's very nature somebody has to be in charge therefore creating a minimum of a two stage hierarchy and social structure?
Awayman would answer this way better than me, but seeing as he's keeping himself quiet . . . . sad

Really difficult question Trevaunance. It's hard enough trying to establish whether Socialism is just synonym for Communism, or just a stage en route to Communism as it is, depending who you read, before we even start on whether the one or the other necessarily means the maintenance of an existing social hierarchy, or the creation of a new one?
Some will tell you that the creation of a Socialist society will have to be led by an elite vanguard, let's call them for the sake of argument 'The Party', and they will have to take over the machinery of 'The State' before they can begin to dismantle it. The State is to be understood as that set of Governmental and Legal institutions whose primary purpose is the protection of 'private property'. Only by taking over that machinery can 'The Party' hope to effect eventually the redistribution of wealth and the transfer of the means of production to 'The Masses.' This redistribution will inevitably lead eventually to the 'withering away of The State', because its whole raison d'etre ((( private property. ))) will no longer exist. It is at this point that true Communism comes into it's own.
Some will tell you this is absolute bollox, and herein lie the seeds of Stalinism. It has after all always tended to fall down at this point, historically speaking? Others will jump in at this point banging on and on about how it would all have worked if it weren't for the efforts of the Western powers, and counter-revolutionaries, and Hitler and what have you, and Stalinism at it's most extreme is just the inevitable consequence of WW1, the rise of Fascism, and WW2, and the need to maintain yer State Capitalist architecture and yer concentrated ownership of the means of production cos that's the only way they could defend themselves, and they still lost millions, hence the need for yer properly Internationalist approach. Others will tell you that's bollox too, and actually Stalin was just a murderous fucking twat in love with his own power, and it's unfortunate that in so many people's minds Stalinism is so precisely equated with Communism, because they really aren't the same thing at all.
Marx quite explicitly rejected the whole idea of that sort of vanguard elite, and warned against it. Classical Marxism rejects the very idea that we should go anywhere near the existing machinery of State, and clings to the belief that real social change can only come from below. The idea is is that new democratic political and economic structures will be created wherein everyone has a share, and a voice, with the express purpose of avoiding the creation of a new social hierarchy. Quite how this would be achieved was never fully realised, though he did take the Paris Commune as one of his models.
I used to believe in that sort of revolutionary change, but as I've got older I've turned away from it. As someone who aligns himself with the left, I still cling to the belief that real change can and must come from below, but in a progressive, organic way. My hope is that simply by adopting a mindset that believes that altruism is better than greed, and love is better than hate, real change can be effected in a truly revolutionary way without bloodshed, and without creating a new exploiting class. That for me is self-emancipation in its truest sense. That for me is what is meant when Marxists speak of the throwing off of the mental chains of the false consciousness created by the society I live in, that tells me that only by being red in tooth and claw, in a Darwinian sense, can I hope to survive. I am a human being capable of out-thinking my DNA, and this alleged biological imperative that tells me I must order my life around the various greasy poles offered me. I am aware that that relies on everyone else deciding to agree with me, so probably on shaky ground there. Probably away with the bleedin' fairies in fact? lol

Stupidly though, in the face of all the evidence presented to me, I still choose to believe in the intrinsic dignity and essential humanity of my fellow human beings. Therefore I am a Socialist.
N x x x ;)

19 Aug 2011

Neil, After a lifetime of taking politics seriously between three parties you are the first person to take the time and effort to explain a few important factors to me about the 'loony left' lol. Interesting reading indeed smile

But, to get back on track, I still remain fixed in my original point that, for me, the single most definable and important event in British History occurred on Sunday, 28 June 1914, at approximately 1:15 pm in Sarajevo. (See page 2 of this thread for original post on this matter)

20 Aug 2011

I was mostly expecting a tl;dr there TBQH Trevaunance, at best. lol

Not entirely sure how to read your reply, but whichever way you took it, ta . . . . ;)
((( Have I told you yet that your username is very difficult to spell? I think I have? D'you know that your username is very difficult to spell? )))
I'd agree with you that WW1 changed everything. WW2 was certainly the inevitable consequence of the War To End All Wars that didn't quite end, in the same way that WW2 didn't end with atom bombs on Japan, cos the way it got played out over subsequent decades saw many more millions die in a way that was in some ways even more brutal than gas chambers, and the Cold War didn't end with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the implosion of the USSR, and that's why people are occasionally blowing themselves up in trains?
Amazing what you can unleash with a single bullet from a gun, isn't it? The ripples are still being felt in a very literal sense in some parts of the world a century on?
N x x x ;)

20 Aug 2011

Quote by neilinleeds
Stupidly though, in the face of all the evidence presented to me, I still choose to believe in the intrinsic dignity and essential humanity of my fellow human beings. Therefore I am a Socialist.
N x x x ;)

I just read this, and I bloody love it, thank you Neil.
I really believe this of myself too, although I may waver in times of high emotional fu*kedupedness, I do think like this.
]Going to nick it too to use as a thingy on other parts of the internet that I frequent. That's if you don't mind of course.

20 Aug 2011

Probably when the sea cut us off from mainland europe several billion years ago?

21 Aug 2011

Just seen this thread:
So difficult to actually pin something down, but it strikes me as odd that nobody has suggested January 16th 1707, the date of the Treaty of Union.
Before that, there was no 'British' history, in the modern interpretation of the term.

21 Aug 2011

Quote by neilinleeds
Yes.
I am, after all, a socialist.

ok I'm not on a firm footing here, but as I understand socialism its most extreme conclusion is communism.
How can an equal society ever work when by it's very nature somebody has to be in charge therefore creating a minimum of a two stage hierarchy and social structure?
Awayman would answer this way better than me, but seeing as he's keeping himself quiet . . . . sad

Really difficult question Trevaunance. It's hard enough trying to establish whether Socialism is just synonym for Communism, or just a stage en route to Communism as it is, depending who you read, before we even start on whether the one or the other necessarily means the maintenance of an existing social hierarchy, or the creation of a new one?
Some will tell you that the creation of a Socialist society will have to be led by an elite vanguard, let's call them for the sake of argument 'The Party', and they will have to take over the machinery of 'The State' before they can begin to dismantle it. The State is to be understood as that set of Governmental and Legal institutions whose primary purpose is the protection of 'private property'. Only by taking over that machinery can 'The Party' hope to effect eventually the redistribution of wealth and the transfer of the means of production to 'The Masses.' This redistribution will inevitably lead eventually to the 'withering away of The State', because its whole raison d'etre ((( private property. ))) will no longer exist. It is at this point that true Communism comes into it's own.
Some will tell you this is absolute bollox, and herein lie the seeds of Stalinism. It has after all always tended to fall down at this point, historically speaking? Others will jump in at this point banging on and on about how it would all have worked if it weren't for the efforts of the Western powers, and counter-revolutionaries, and Hitler and what have you, and Stalinism at it's most extreme is just the inevitable consequence of WW1, the rise of Fascism, and WW2, and the need to maintain yer State Capitalist architecture and yer concentrated ownership of the means of production cos that's the only way they could defend themselves, and they still lost millions, hence the need for yer properly Internationalist approach. Others will tell you that's bollox too, and actually Stalin was just a murderous fucking twat in love with his own power, and it's unfortunate that in so many people's minds Stalinism is so precisely equated with Communism, because they really aren't the same thing at all.
Marx quite explicitly rejected the whole idea of that sort of vanguard elite, and warned against it. Classical Marxism rejects the very idea that we should go anywhere near the existing machinery of State, and clings to the belief that real social change can only come from below. The idea is is that new democratic political and economic structures will be created wherein everyone has a share, and a voice, with the express purpose of avoiding the creation of a new social hierarchy. Quite how this would be achieved was never fully realised, though he did take the Paris Commune as one of his models.
I used to believe in that sort of revolutionary change, but as I've got older I've turned away from it. As someone who aligns himself with the left, I still cling to the belief that real change can and must come from below, but in a progressive, organic way. My hope is that simply by adopting a mindset that believes that altruism is better than greed, and love is better than hate, real change can be effected in a truly revolutionary way without bloodshed, and without creating a new exploiting class. That for me is self-emancipation in its truest sense. That for me is what is meant when Marxists speak of the throwing off of the mental chains of the false consciousness created by the society I live in, that tells me that only by being red in tooth and claw, in a Darwinian sense, can I hope to survive. I am a human being capable of out-thinking my DNA, and this alleged biological imperative that tells me I must order my life around the various greasy poles offered me. I am aware that that relies on everyone else deciding to agree with me, so probably on shaky ground there. Probably away with the bleedin' fairies in fact? lol

Stupidly though, in the face of all the evidence presented to me, I still choose to believe in the intrinsic dignity and essential humanity of my fellow human beings. Therefore I am a Socialist.
N x x x ;)
Splendid post Neil.... but me being me I'm going to have to add my tuppence worth of lefty nonsense ....
My understanding of how a hierarchy is avoided is that government should be a co-operative process, so that rather than edicts being handed down from on high there is a genuine process of consultation and negotiation between the state and the people .... in which the needs of the people are paramount... I usually use this in any argument about the failure of the Russian revolution (or indeed any other). The revolution failed in Russia not because the legislature lost sight of the will and the need of the people but because the people lost sight of the fact that THEY were the revolution THEY had brought down the tsars by force of arms and they had it within their power to police their government. It was the Russian people who allowed themselves to be subjugated by the the machinery of the Stalinist state, Mao tried to overcome this with the concept of 'permanent revolution' but again the petty jealousies of local party machines destroyed the concept and resulted in tyranny
The above I realise may to some seem like a fair argument against Marxism, all that tyranny and party manoeuvring, but the answer is ,to me at least, fairly obvious.... the 'party' is only needed until the people gain power and should then be kept well away from the machinery of state (if it is retained in any formal sense at all) ... a society of equals is more than capable of making decisions for itself,a society of equals is more than capable of fulfilling its own needs on a fair a equitable footing .... like Neil I do and always will cling to the belief that humanity is at its core co-operative and altruistic and that any sane member of our species given the opportunity to do the right thing will do it ... we got to the top of the food chain because we are a pack animal,had we not been 'Lucy' would have been lion food and we'd just be monkeys

21 Aug 2011

Surely the interwebnet gives us a chance at participative governance.

22 Aug 2011

Quote by Ben_Minx
Surely the interwebnet gives us a chance at participative governance.

dont forget about collaborative governance as well ben wink

22 Aug 2011

Quote by Ben_Minx
Surely the interwebnet gives us a chance at participative governance.

Ben,
'had' at the 1st hurdle, i.e. you seem to believe the interwebnet gives us a chance at participative governance :sad:
That's just what they like you to think wink

Just a few examples might be useful
:twisted:
- continued Chinese 'filtering' of it
- North Koreavery tightly controls internet access
- Egyptian turning off of mobile phones and internet this spring by the then regime, with over 50 million users local internet users got the message, “According to relevant laws, regulations and policies, the search results are not shown.”
- the current UK debate by Cameron & co "...we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”
- Belarus has Laws keeping economics and politics highly centralized and the executive authority is vested in the presidential office, this censorship extends to the Internet and has become increasingly sophisticated. for instance, the workers of computer clubs and cyber-cafes must identify their customers. Information about user’s devices, personal data on the Internet-users and information about the rendered Internet services must be submitted upon request of state bodies, carrying out investigative activities, as well as prosecution and preliminary investigation agencies. In the case of gross violations of the law an Internet service provider can stop rendering Internet service to a firm or individual.
- The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to expand and consolidate its technical filtering system, which is among the most extensive in the world. A centralized system for Internet filtering has been implemented that augments the filtering conducted at the Internet service provider (ISP) level. Iran now employs domestically produced technology for identifying and blocking objectionable Web sites, reducing its reliance on Western filtering technologies. The regulatory agencies in Iran charged with policing the Internet continue to expand. The Revolutionary Guard has begun to play an active role in enforcing Internet content standards.
- On first of January 2007 Finland, under thir government at that time, joined the questionable company of Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Netherlands becoming the fifth EU state to date to instate a state controlled Internet censorship in legislation.
- Vietnam’s legal regulation of Internet access and content is multilayered and complex, and can occur at the level of National Assembly legislation, ministerial decisions, or through VNPT rules created for the management of the Internet infrastructure. Although Vietnam nominally guarantees freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly through constitutional provisions, state security laws and other regulations trump or eliminate these formal protections.
However on the plus side I'm not sure the Welsh Assembley are on the way down this road yet Ben, so enjoy it whilst you can
lol

22 Aug 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Splendid post Neil.... but me being me I'm going to have to add my tuppence worth of lefty nonsense ....
My understanding of how a hierarchy is avoided is that government should be a co-operative process, so that rather than edicts being handed down from on high there is a genuine process of consultation and negotiation between the state and the people .... in which the needs of the people are paramount... I usually use this in any argument about the failure of the Russian revolution (or indeed any other). The revolution failed in Russia not because the legislature lost sight of the will and the need of the people but because the people lost sight of the fact that THEY were the revolution THEY had brought down the tsars by force of arms and they had it within their power to police their government. It was the Russian people who allowed themselves to be subjugated by the the machinery of the Stalinist state, Mao tried to overcome this with the concept of 'permanent revolution' but again the petty jealousies of local party machines destroyed the concept and resulted in tyranny
The above I realise may to some seem like a fair argument against Marxism, all that tyranny and party manoeuvring, but the answer is ,to me at least, fairly obvious.... the 'party' is only needed until the people gain power and should then be kept well away from the machinery of state (if it is retained in any formal sense at all) ... a society of equals is more than capable of making decisions for itself,a society of equals is more than capable of fulfilling its own needs on a fair a equitable footing .... like Neil I do and always will cling to the belief that humanity is at its core co-operative and altruistic and that any sane member of our species given the opportunity to do the right thing will do it ... we got to the top of the food chain because we are a pack animal,had we not been 'Lucy' would have been lion food and we'd just be monkeys

i might add none of which has worked or succeeded to date with Communism which also failed to stamp out corruption or poverty
and I'm afraid just a simple roof over peoples heads and food on the table will never be enough for most of the human race and it certainly wasn,t in communist Russia
i remember when simple things like Levi jeans could buy far more than money in Communist Russia wink

22 Aug 2011

Quote by duncanlondon
Probably when the sea cut us off from mainland europe several billion years ago?

It was about 10000 years ago. Well within the period of man's spread from Europe into the farther reaches of the UK. It was the end of the last ice-age and happened because melt-water that had built up during a thaw broke through an ice-barrier that gradually melted. Anyway, it wasn't so long ago and at the time people lived on the land that later became the North Sea left loads of evidence; from flint tools to butchered animal bones. They get pulled up occasionally in drag-nets. It was a time of hunter-gatherers and there were no buildings to speak of, people probably set up seasonal camps when they stopped to make the most of the mamonoth hunting or the fishing in a particulart area then moved on when the wetaher changed or the food hunting got thin. Because it was all land then, the Tha,es was a tributary of one of the German rivers - the Rhine I think.
It's a fascinating period and the people then were indistinguisahble from us - apart from they wouldn't carry iPhones. :giggle:
But I agree - it was one of the defining 'moments' in history.
Another was the loss by Harold Godwinson (King harold) to William the Bastard of Normandy (William the Conqueror). Imagine if Harold had rested his knights after the battle of Stamford Bridge and been able to best William? We would have remained an Anglo-Saxon nation, like what became Germany, instead of being so heavily influenced by the French/Norman culture. Mind you - the peasants would have had very much the same life - nasty, brutish, short and taxed to death.

22 Aug 2011

Quote by HnS
Surely the interwebnet gives us a chance at participative governance.

Ben,
etc...........

I was thinking more along the lines of government using t'internet as a medium for consultation etc but I take your points.

23 Aug 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob

Splendid ...... monkeys

i might add none of which has worked or succeeded to date with Communism which also failed to stamp out corruption or poverty
and I'm afraid just a simple roof over peoples heads and food on the table will never be enough for most of the human race and it certainly wasn,t in communist Russia
i remember when simple things like Levi jeans could buy far more than money in Communist Russia wink

You probably should have said DONE rather than worked Rob but ho hum .... Edison is reputed to have upwards of 10,000 attempts to find the perfect material for the filament in a light bulb before he got it right .... if at first etc.

23 Aug 2011

Quote by flower411

Splendid ...... monkeys

i might add none of which has worked or succeeded to date with Communism which also failed to stamp out corruption or poverty
and I'm afraid just a simple roof over peoples heads and food on the table will never be enough for most of the human race and it certainly wasn,t in communist Russia
i remember when simple things like Levi jeans could buy far more than money in Communist Russia wink

You probably should have said DONE rather than worked Rob but ho hum .... Edison is reputed to have upwards of 10,000 attempts to find the perfect material for the filament in a light bulb before he got it right .... if at first etc.
Yeah but ....
It`s not the materials we`re talking about here surely ...the material is the human race and there is no inherent "goodness" in the human race !!
Cooperation rose from necessity and flourished because everybody benefited from the cooperation, but the idea that everybody benifits equally from any form of cooperation is simply not true .
I`d hazard a guess that when a bunch of hunter gatherers took down some big animal, the biggest and strongest took the best bits and the others were happy to get what was left.
And if the others had any sense it wouldn't be long before he was hunting alone .... lion food

23 Aug 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

Splendid ...... monkeys

i might add none of which has worked or succeeded to date with Communism which also failed to stamp out corruption or poverty
and I'm afraid just a simple roof over peoples heads and food on the table will never be enough for most of the human race and it certainly wasn,t in communist Russia
i remember when simple things like Levi jeans could buy far more than money in Communist Russia wink

You probably should have said DONE rather than worked Rob but ho hum .... Edison is reputed to have upwards of 10,000 attempts to find the perfect material for the filament in a light bulb before he got it right .... if at first etc.
then i would suggest he had no knowledge of metal nor was he a engineer :wink:

23 Aug 2011

Quote by flower411

Splendid ...... monkeys

i might add none of which has worked or succeeded to date with Communism which also failed to stamp out corruption or poverty
and I'm afraid just a simple roof over peoples heads and food on the table will never be enough for most of the human race and it certainly wasn,t in communist Russia
i remember when simple things like Levi jeans could buy far more than money in Communist Russia wink

You probably should have said DONE rather than worked Rob but ho hum .... Edison is reputed to have upwards of 10,000 attempts to find the perfect material for the filament in a light bulb before he got it right .... if at first etc.
Yeah but ....
It`s not the materials we`re talking about here surely ...the material is the human race and there is no inherent "goodness" in the human race !!
Cooperation rose from necessity and flourished because everybody benefited from the cooperation, but the idea that everybody benifits equally from any form of cooperation is simply not true .
I`d hazard a guess that when a bunch of hunter gatherers took down some big animal, the biggest and strongest took the best bits and the others were happy to get what was left.
And if the others had any sense it wouldn't be long before he was hunting alone .... lion food
That`s interesting ....when I said the biggest and the strongest I was thinking of a group...
I`m sure that some of the biggest and the strongest had got mutilated until maybe some not so big and strong people had come up with some ideas for making the whole process less dangerous and invented spears and stuff ....these may not have been the biggest and the strongest people but they`d have been thanked for their ideas and even rewarded if they were unable to help in the actual killing but you can bet your life that the biggest and strongest decided where the best bits went .
A group ?? really?? Biggest (that which is largest) Strongest (that which posses the most strength)...
So this phrase "I`d hazard a guess that when a bunch of hunter gatherers took down some big animal, the biggest and strongest took the best bits and the others were happy to get what was left." refers not to the biggest and strongest member of the said group, but is instead meant to imply that this is the biggest and strongest group ???
But then of course you didn't mean biggest and strongest you were actually referring to the cleverest or most inventive ".these may not have been the biggest and the strongest people", but no wait you meant the biggest and strongest in the group all along " but you can bet your life that the biggest and strongest decided where the best bits went "
Flower whilst at times I do admire your attempts to make people look foolish sometimes it just turns round and bites on the arse, doesn't it?

24 Aug 2011

Clearly, the most important event in British history was ending of the last ice age. Without that, Britain would not exist. It would just be a bit of rough land attached on to the top of France.
As you were wink

24 Aug 2011

Quote by flower411
Not at all !!
...no need at all for me to be here.

another flounce? lol