All societies are unequal
19/4/10 23:40![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
green-man-2010.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsBut some, it seems, are more unequal than others.
And yet it seems to be that where the masses are dirt poor and starving peasants, the rulers of these countries are not as well off as affluent people in countries where the differences between the rich and poor are not as widely seperate.
In real terms, the people who form the ' inner ring' around a dictator like Idi Amin or Saddam Hussain are not as wealthy as say, the average stockbroker in Surrey, or the top earners in industrialised democracies. And this is not hard to fathom. If you have gun toting goons around you, you might be able to steal everything the peasants have got - but the peasants won't have that much that you can steal.
A wealthy stockbroker , though, you can tax . Sure, they will moan , but they will always pay more than an illiterate peasant. So, even the rich get a payoff for closing the gap between the rich and the poor. In pre-war Germany, Krupps, the big steel magnate, made a point of payin the workers well, building homes for the workforce, and even installing showers that the steel workers could use in the workplace before they got changed out of their overalls and went home.
When another wealthy friends questioned his generousity, Krupps remarked " it's a small price to pay to keep Communism and Socialism out of the workplace " Cynically, he bought the workforce off, undermining the sources of discontent and greivances in order to keep the bulk of the profits for himself. Yet it was true that his workers were better off than many of their contemporaries.
Today, The Green party is not out to abolish capitalism, but rather to close the gap between rich and poor. a goal that some see as a sell out. " Why beg for a few more crumbs when we can seize control of the bakery?" they ask.
The SWP, years ago were preaching revolution , and not reform. Rather than overhaul the system, they sought to sweep it away. And one day, a demonstration , up in the north, took a surprising turn. I know , because i was in the SWP at the time and I read all about it in the party newspaper, the Socialist Worker.
It turned out that a window got broken , and a small supermarket got looted. A lot of booze and cigerretes were 'liberated' and reurned to the control of the proletariat', it seemed . So, at the next big meeting that I went to, many speakers stood up to congratulate the workers who took part in the demo for their tremendous victory over the capitalist classes and their quasi-fascist police force. Then I got on the rostrum and asked a few questions. Like -
" How many tins of baby food got liberated and turned over to a young working mother to feed her child?"
"Did any local OAPs enjoy enjoy a bit of beef that evening, or did as much as a single bottle of milk go missing and find its way to someone in need?"
These questions were met with stunned silence. I took that to mean a 'no' then. And i pointed out that if this was what happened when they siezed control of one small shop, then what could we expect of them if they ever got control of something biigger?
Somehow, I got the feeling that we would not see a workers paradise come into being , but a selfish mad scramble as everyone stuffed as much as they could into their own pockets. Mark it well, all the booze and ciggies went - but no food. The rioters were not hungry I suppose. Even so, there was no thought for the poor who might have been. I remember it well, because I recall how dissappointed I felt at seeing these self styled revolutionaries in their true colours.
I also remeber it as the day I tore up my SWP party card.
Everyone who gets rich, or even stays rich, does so by being disciplined and well organised - or they don't stay rich for long. If we allow the rich to keep the bulk of the wealth they create, we can still syphon off enough to keep the poorest in our society at a decent levelof comfort and well being. We can even see to it that they can create some wealth themselves, and bette the whole community as a result.
A cap on the excessive bonusses of bankers would impact so few, but save so much. Raising the level of the lowest paid in sociey would also close the gap - and societies with a more equal wealth distribution have lower crime rates, lower rates of teenage pregnancy, disease and other social ills. So, yes, we would bring back in the 10% tax band, and the 22% basic rate, but also crack down on tax havens. why should the rich forid 'tax evasion ' when they simply call it ' tax avoidance' when they do it themselves.
More equal societies have fewer people in prison per capita, they also have less violent crime as well.
They even mange to recycle more! So, the Greens commit to making our society more equal, using a whole raft of measures.
For more info on Equality as an issue, go to the report by independant academics, found here at
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/
And yet it seems to be that where the masses are dirt poor and starving peasants, the rulers of these countries are not as well off as affluent people in countries where the differences between the rich and poor are not as widely seperate.
In real terms, the people who form the ' inner ring' around a dictator like Idi Amin or Saddam Hussain are not as wealthy as say, the average stockbroker in Surrey, or the top earners in industrialised democracies. And this is not hard to fathom. If you have gun toting goons around you, you might be able to steal everything the peasants have got - but the peasants won't have that much that you can steal.
A wealthy stockbroker , though, you can tax . Sure, they will moan , but they will always pay more than an illiterate peasant. So, even the rich get a payoff for closing the gap between the rich and the poor. In pre-war Germany, Krupps, the big steel magnate, made a point of payin the workers well, building homes for the workforce, and even installing showers that the steel workers could use in the workplace before they got changed out of their overalls and went home.
When another wealthy friends questioned his generousity, Krupps remarked " it's a small price to pay to keep Communism and Socialism out of the workplace " Cynically, he bought the workforce off, undermining the sources of discontent and greivances in order to keep the bulk of the profits for himself. Yet it was true that his workers were better off than many of their contemporaries.
Today, The Green party is not out to abolish capitalism, but rather to close the gap between rich and poor. a goal that some see as a sell out. " Why beg for a few more crumbs when we can seize control of the bakery?" they ask.
The SWP, years ago were preaching revolution , and not reform. Rather than overhaul the system, they sought to sweep it away. And one day, a demonstration , up in the north, took a surprising turn. I know , because i was in the SWP at the time and I read all about it in the party newspaper, the Socialist Worker.
It turned out that a window got broken , and a small supermarket got looted. A lot of booze and cigerretes were 'liberated' and reurned to the control of the proletariat', it seemed . So, at the next big meeting that I went to, many speakers stood up to congratulate the workers who took part in the demo for their tremendous victory over the capitalist classes and their quasi-fascist police force. Then I got on the rostrum and asked a few questions. Like -
" How many tins of baby food got liberated and turned over to a young working mother to feed her child?"
"Did any local OAPs enjoy enjoy a bit of beef that evening, or did as much as a single bottle of milk go missing and find its way to someone in need?"
These questions were met with stunned silence. I took that to mean a 'no' then. And i pointed out that if this was what happened when they siezed control of one small shop, then what could we expect of them if they ever got control of something biigger?
Somehow, I got the feeling that we would not see a workers paradise come into being , but a selfish mad scramble as everyone stuffed as much as they could into their own pockets. Mark it well, all the booze and ciggies went - but no food. The rioters were not hungry I suppose. Even so, there was no thought for the poor who might have been. I remember it well, because I recall how dissappointed I felt at seeing these self styled revolutionaries in their true colours.
I also remeber it as the day I tore up my SWP party card.
Everyone who gets rich, or even stays rich, does so by being disciplined and well organised - or they don't stay rich for long. If we allow the rich to keep the bulk of the wealth they create, we can still syphon off enough to keep the poorest in our society at a decent levelof comfort and well being. We can even see to it that they can create some wealth themselves, and bette the whole community as a result.
A cap on the excessive bonusses of bankers would impact so few, but save so much. Raising the level of the lowest paid in sociey would also close the gap - and societies with a more equal wealth distribution have lower crime rates, lower rates of teenage pregnancy, disease and other social ills. So, yes, we would bring back in the 10% tax band, and the 22% basic rate, but also crack down on tax havens. why should the rich forid 'tax evasion ' when they simply call it ' tax avoidance' when they do it themselves.
More equal societies have fewer people in prison per capita, they also have less violent crime as well.
They even mange to recycle more! So, the Greens commit to making our society more equal, using a whole raft of measures.
For more info on Equality as an issue, go to the report by independant academics, found here at
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/
(no subject)
Date: 20/4/10 17:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/10 18:05 (UTC)If I were the owner of a supermarket then I have *already* applied for a business license, already know the expectations of me, and I have agreed to them.
You seem to be wanting policy to be based on emotive "but what about my wants" when government has to legislate on the level of towns, counties, states, and countries.
(no subject)
Date: 20/4/10 18:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/10 22:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/10 23:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/4/10 02:08 (UTC)"Then I got on the rostrum and asked a few questions. Like -
" How many tins of baby food got liberated and turned over to a young working mother to feed her child?"
"Did any local OAPs enjoy enjoy a bit of beef that evening, or did as much as a single bottle of milk go missing and find its way to someone in need?"
These questions were met with stunned silence. I took that to mean a 'no' then. And i pointed out that if this was what happened when they siezed control of one small shop, then what could we expect of them if they ever got control of something biigger?"
I don't see him saying anything how bad it is to loot someone else property, respect for the work of others and for the private property.
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/10 08:45 (UTC)We were talking from within a system where it was assumed that the supermarket owner was "stealing from the poor2 and the only way to right the wrongs of the world was for the poor to rise up and take these things back.
Now, while this sounds fine in principle, in pctice, when people rise up and use violence, the poor do not get bottles of milk and poorer mothers do not get baby food handed to them.
The shop got looted and they men who did it got to carry away what ~they ~ wanted. So, for me the argument that "Property is theft" didn't work any more.
What is needed is not the abolition of property, or taxation , but a wat to ensure that the opportunity to earn cash, and buy property , and do social investment is distributed more evenly.
The fact that I tore up my party card and am no longer an SWP member should give you a hint as to how I feel about looting for the masses.
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/10 14:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/4/10 15:58 (UTC)Under thee present system , if I fail to declare on my earnings, it's 'tax evasion'.
However, if I am wealthy enough, I can have my money streered into an off shore tax haven and then it's 'tax avoidance'. to me , this means that some people can create wealth using the resources that the country provides and does not pay for them. That is quite unfair.
people who earn lea should be taxed least. we favour a 22% basic rate. OTOH, people who earn more should pay more in tax, not just avoid it altogher.
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/10 22:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/4/10 23:26 (UTC)What I mean is, if the rich are paying a mere 1% of their earnings on food, shouldn't the poor be doing a bout the same?
Maybe if people get to keep the first ten grand, say, but pay a higher amount in the next ten and a bigger amount in every ten grand after that, it means that the poor will keep more of their income and those who can affordto, and actually get more out of the system will end up paying for all the privileges that they have.
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/10 23:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/4/10 23:43 (UTC)what I am thinking of is -
If your daddy went to university, the chances are you will ,too.
If your dad owns a car, it is easier for you to get one and learn to drive.
If your dad dies and leaves you a house, instead of an empty bottle of booze, you did not have to work for that house, it just happened to be yours.
And you will never know how much someone like me has to puff and sweat to get the same things that just fall into your lap because of who you are and who your daddy just happens to be.
That is what I call ' privelege' - is it 'public' or not? I don't give a damn.
It is privelege, and gives the owner an unfair advantage. if we can't abolish priv in society, we should at least minimise its effects.
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/10 23:49 (UTC)So it's not that they enjoy some extra services at the taxpayer's expense, it's just that you are jealous of their success. Gotcha.