It follows that...
Given that (thesis 1) political parties define their success by how many people vote for them, and given that (thesis 2) anarchists define their success by how many people don't vote for them, it follows that (synthesis) by either measure, anarchists are more successful than political parties.
posted by Platypus Bill @ 11:06 pm
5 Comments:
Thesis - AntitThesis - Synthesis.
I wish you success!
So what do you call someone who wants people to vote for her in the European elections - and thinks the best way to achieve this is by discouraging any but the 2 who do vote for her, from standing for the party
Uhu - then I know more than one party who must be anarchists.
See they all have the same goals but they all wanna be Pope.
That's not a very effective way of defeating the Pope's Party, Cameron's Party or son Of Bush's Party.
Unless of course these anarchists and antipapists are really Conservatives in disguise
Don't let me hear any anarchists or greens cry, other than for joy, when Conservatives get back in
Even anarchists have something in 'common' - their anarchism
Now we know Conservatives are about fascist regimes and making the rich + landlords richer. They never cared much for their slaves (whether black or white) they never cared much for their workers or the miners (whether black or white). And in true Zionist style they never cared much for the unemployed, the homeless, the old, the sick or the disabled - except those among their own. If you don't believe me ask Palestinians.
We know Labour is about Social Justice + Workers Rights. How much does it cost to maintain your mentally challenged or physically challenged child or relative. Who do you think created the system which treats them as equals regardless of their ability. Who do you think created the Benefits System, Social Housing, Universal Education (including University) + the NHS.
Libdem + New Labour, I don't think even they know what they stand for. They know they are morally + culturally above Conservatives, they just can't seem to place themselves firmly Socially or ethically above Old Labour.
Now Greens - what are they about. Anti 4X4s (or do they just whish they could afford one). Environmental Campaigners or just anti Global Warming hot air. Are they really Green or do they just love to wallow in manure. I know another animal does that - maybe it is Green by definition.
When Greens do decide they are Socially aware + committed to Social Justice, Social Housing, Universal Education inc University and a free NHS, then they'll have the votes and REAL Power to bring their Green Agenda forward.
AGENDAS are set by Governments and powerful self-interest groups, not by individuals, anarchists or wisshy wasshy wannabee dunno whats
Its political parties that:
(1) define their high wages, and you get the crumbs from the table if you are lucky
(2) define their high expenses, and you get nothing unless you can pay
(3) define who gets 'free' BUPA and 'free' health insurance, yet would presume to scrap a 'free' NHS or 'privatise' health care
(4) define who gets 'free' and sizeable state pensions, yet would tell others to save for a rainy day by paying into private pensions. And who bails out these pyramid private pension schemes when they go 'belly-up' as in Robert Maxwell (pun intended) - or the latest private pension fund collapse.
(5) define wo gets 'free' University education: sons of military officers, RAF recruits, sons of hierarchy & monarchy - whilst they expect the less well off to pay tuition fees and top-up fees for University Education.
Mortgage your 'childrens' Education, Health, Wealth & Future, to keep them in riches.
And who is doing this? New Labour
Who is the instigator? TB
So Anarchists, may be more successful in your 'synthesis' - but unless they get together and vote, they'll be left out in the cold (again) and others will make the rules. Inevitably in their favour.
Wouldn't it be better to have free Health (regulated and with the Medical Profession held accountable)
Wouldn't it be better to have free Education including University
Wouldn't it be better to have decent State Pensions for ALL
Wouldn't it be better to have decent Housing for ALL regardless of ability to pay.
The Country can afford it. It is liars & thieves try to hoodwink others that there is only enough for one half (the greedy) and not enough for the other 1/2 (less able).
This is a false argument that should have been buried in the last decade (1997 to be exact) nay, in the last Century (20thC) even in The Last Millennium.
Post a Comment
<< Home