G20 demonstrations

[James.]

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/993

I was in the camp about an hour before that. Really don't see why the police had to go in though to be honest. It was like a mini festival, just a load of people, tents and music in a public place.

For all the shit I give the protesters I will still stand up for their right to protest. Particularly when it was as peaceful as that one.

[Babylon]

He's suggesting Anarchy. It's a fantastic system in principal but it's utterly unrealistic without global catastrophe.

The common misconception is that Anarchy means no rules, no order and utter chaos - this is completely wrong and is just narrow-minded dogma distributed by the right. The concept of Anarchy is really not much different to pre-Feudal society.

Independent communities "led" by it's elders and doing trade internally for services. The doctor does his job and in turn the baker gives him bread, the brewer gives him beer and the builder builds his house. There's no reason, in theory, this couldn't continue on a wider scale. Community X cannot produce cars but it can produce computers so it gives it's computers to community Y who in turn send cars back.

"Value" has no meaning because everyone accepts the need and want for every resource so every resource is traded for every other. There is no crime because everybody has the same as everybody else.

It's an amazingly brilliant yet simple idea.. in theory. In reallity it completely ignores thousands of years of human nature. Ambition, greed, inherent violence and God knows what else. It's idealism, it's naive and it's pretty much impossible.

So... wading through all that student jibber jabber ( ) I do have to give daggers 20'000 carrots for my tv at the Sunday market?

[Finnegan]

I was in the camp about an hour before that. Really don't see why the police had to go in though to be honest. It was like a mini festival, just a load of people, tents and music in a public place.

For all the shit I give the protesters I will still stand up for their right to protest. Particularly when it was as peaceful as that one.

Sure. But blaming the police is just misdirected finger-pointing. It's not like they decided, on a whim, to go in and beat up some hippies.

They'll have done as ordered and went in fairly calmly as far as that video showed.

[Finnegan]

So... wading through all that student jibber jabber ( ) I do have to give daggers 20'000 carrots for my tv at the Sunday market?

No. Daggers is happy to give you a TV and anyone else who doesn't have one a TV because your labour keeps the community's stockpiles full of carrots for everyone.

[Babylon]

No. Daggers is happy to give you a TV and anyone else who doesn't have one a TV because your labour keeps the community's stockpiles full of carrots for everyone.

If I was Daggers I would feel a bit hard done by... Tv's are way better than carrots.

[Finnegan]

If I was Daggers I would feel a bit hard done by... Tv's are way better than carrots.

Thus one of many flaws in the system.

[James.]

Sure. But blaming the police is just misdirected finger-pointing. It's not like they decided, on a whim, to go in and beat up some hippies.

They'll have done as ordered and went in fairly calmly as far as that video showed.

Yeah I agree. My issue is with whoever gave the order to go in. No need really, in my opinion.

I've got a little bit of me that relates to the hippy way of thinking. Only a little bit mind, I'm normally a heartless capitalist, but walking through that camp last night really brought out that side of me. It was exciting and different. And I find it a shame that a completely harmless protest that breathes a different kind of buzz in to an area of London dominated by business and finance is stopped by a load of riot police for no real reason.

[Babylon]

Thus one of many flaws in the system.

So.... to summarise. El Empty is off his tit's on carrot juice, that he gets free for producing shammy leathers in his anarchist compound?

[Finnegan]

So.... to summarise. El Empty is off his tit's on carrot juice, that he gets free for producing shammy leathers in his anarchist compound?

More like stoned in his flat and has spent too long staring at the Che Guevara and Bob Marley posters.

He'll go off in a minute, when he gets the munchies, put on his Nikes and his other-capitalist-dependant-brand-name coat, buy a coke, a McDonalds and gorge on both.

[BoneDog]

Am I missing something here? Without money I could still have food and a tv?

Now, I know I could grow the basics to keep me going. But how do I go about getting a tv without money? Are you suggesting that we go back to the days of, I'm a farmer, Fez is a black smith, Lisa makes clothing, Daggers makes flat screen tv's etc etc... we all meet up at the market come the weekend and trade our goods?

Daggers... how many ears of corn would you like for a 42" LCD (Hi Def of course)??

Are you saying that if money weren't invented some bright spark wouldn't of worked out how to make a TV? Course you don't need money to make one. You just need money if you wanna sell one.

I don't no what would happen if cash weren't around, just sayin it aint needed cos all the materials and brains would still be here. Money was an add-on long after all the materials were here.

[Finnegan]

Capitalism (and war) creates competition, though, competition that has fuelled thousands of advances in technology we may otherwise not have had.

You probably wouldn't have a plasma TV, if a TV at all, if it weren't for Capitalists. I don't like or approve of capitalism but I wouldn't call myself an anti-capitalist because it's simply impossible to imagine a world without it and I really don't believe we'd be anywhere near as well developed if not.

That and I think human evil would exist anyway - see Stalin, Polpot, Mao, etc.

[Monk]

Globalisation and the global economy would not exist without money (when I say money I include gold). Without that there would be no way to set prices of goods effectively - and you would effectively have to have 1 exhange price for every pair of goods - 1 tv is worth 1000 carrots, 1 carrot is worth 2 Gordon Browns etc. To be honest the people who talk about abolishing money are talking out of their arses entirely.

[BoneDog]

Babylon and Finnegan you both make up shit about me that I aint even said! And even worse, you both think you're right. Dream on boys. I aint said anything that you two say I have. You are funny

[BoneDog]

lol Go go Rozzers.

I love that there's pretty much 0 signs of police brutality there at all. If this was somewhere in mainland Europe or the States there'd be battons, pepper spray and tear gas all over the place and a hell of a lot more shields to the face and midsection.

I concede I'm currently only 3/4 of the way through the video but I'd say that's pretty well handled to be fair!

And all of that emotive "UNPROVOKED ATTACK!" stuff is stupid. They don't need to be "provoked" they just need to receive the order, that's their job.

I appreciate police brutality exists and I disagree with the hero worship of policemen, soldiers and the like - but I also can't stand cop-bashing purely for the sakes of looking cool. This isn't the 1980s, they arent' a bunch of squadies drafted in and given blue uniforms to shit-kick everyone who dares oppose the government.

Where was there ANY cop bashing in that video? Nowhere at all. And I aint done any cop bashing either.

I've got family who are cops and soldiers so I aint gonna try and bash either of the forces

[BoneDog]

I'm starting to realise there's no point at all having a debate here! Over the head is an understatement

[Monk]

you said it buddy

[breadandcheese]

I don't no what would happen if cash weren't around, just sayin it aint needed cos all the materials and brains would still be here. Money was an add-on long after all the materials were here.

Money provides the incentive and the ability to ration the goods and services that would be exchanged.

Your theory ignores marginal utility, the freeloader problem, scarcity of resources and bits of game theory.

[Finnegan]

Globalisation and the global economy would not exist without money (when I say money I include gold). Without that there would be no way to set prices of goods effectively - and you would effectively have to have 1 exhange price for every pair of goods - 1 tv is worth 1000 carrots, 1 carrot is worth 2 Gordon Browns etc. To be honest the people who talk about abolishing money are talking out of their arses entirely.

No, like I said, the system isn't supposed to put 'value' to anything. You need to stop thinking like a banker and think about "worth" as a more abstract concept.

It's easy to imagine on a communal level, at village level, the farmer feeding everyone indiscriminately because he in turn receives any infinite number of services from his community when and where he needs them.

On a more global level it's difficult to get your head around but it isn't impossible. Say country X is full of skilled technicians but has no oil or gas reserves to make plastics and no ore reserves to make metal components - countries Y and Z who do are happy to send their resources to country X because country X provides country Q with motherboards, microprocessors and the like to make computers for countries Y, Z, X and Q.

Nobody questions the worth or the value and nobody finds themselves wanting because resources are available to all who will put them to use.

Like I said - it isn't realistic I agree but it is (vaguely) possible. You don't need a world bank you just need a united world. You work as one, great, big machine.

Babylon and Finnegan you both make up shit about me that I aint even said! And even worse, you both think you're right. Dream on boys. I aint said anything that you two say I have. You are funny

We're both joking about you, though what I said about anarchism is true.

[Alexikokopops]

Are you saying that if money weren't invented some bright spark wouldn't of worked out how to make a TV? Course you don't need money to make one. You just need money if you wanna sell one.

I don't no what would happen if cash weren't around, just sayin it aint needed cos all the materials and brains would still be here. Money was an add-on long after all the materials were here.

Yes, the materials would still be there, but who's going to make a tv from them if they're not getting anything in return?

[Jon the Hat]

Globalisation and the global economy would not exist without money (when I say money I include gold). Without that there would be no way to set prices of goods effectively - and you would effectively have to have 1 exhange price for every pair of goods - 1 tv is worth 1000 carrots, 1 carrot is worth 2 Gordon Browns etc. To be honest the people who talk about abolishing money are talking out of their arses entirely.

Man you talk utter utter rubbish. Seriously. On What planet is ANYONE going to swap half a carrot for Gordon Brown??? Delusional. Even his Wife wouldn't waste a good carrot.

[BoneDog]

Money provides the incentive and the ability to ration the goods and services that would be exchanged.

Your theory ignores marginal utility, the freeloader problem, scarcity of resources and bits of game theory.

Points taken on board

[Shrenchel]

Sure. But blaming the police is just misdirected finger-pointing. It's not like they decided, on a whim, to go in and beat up some hippies.

They'll have done as ordered and went in fairly calmly as far as that video showed.

But you can absolve of a lot of people of blame for almost anything if its ok to do something as long as youre just calmly following orders.

Unless youre as thick a fooking plank, you know when you join the plod in 21st century Britain youre going to spend some of your time following orders to trample all over peoples democratic rights to free speech and protest. Some of your time following orders to get a few arrests out of football fans (even if theyre being peaceful) to keep that cash cow on the go, etc etc.

[breadandcheese]

No, like I said, the system isn't supposed to put 'value' to anything. You need to stop thinking like a banker and think about "worth" as a more abstract concept.

It's easy to imagine on a communal level, at village level, the farmer feeding everyone indiscriminately because he in turn receives any infinite number of services from his community when and where he needs them.

On a more global level it's difficult to get your head around but it isn't impossible. Say country X is full of skilled technicians but has no oil or gas reserves to make plastics and no ore reserves to make metal components - countries Y and Z who do are happy to send their resources to country X because country X provides country Q with motherboards, microprocessors and the like to make computers for countries Y, Z, X and Q.

Nobody questions the worth or the value and nobody finds themselves wanting because resources are available to all who will put them to use.

This could not work even in theory as there is no effective pricing mechanism. You are effectively putting the same value on all the items, so that each person's work/produce is equal, to be taken out of a communal pot. However, what if the farmer, who has to work 8 hours a day, values his work more highly than a TV maker who only has to work 4 hours a day to meet demand? The farmer will deem a pricing mismatch, possibly deciding to work less and ultimately supply less.

There is also the issue that this is based on the assumption of no scarcity of goods. This as we know is not true, so if the TV maker only has enough goods to make 10 TVs for his village of 30, how are these items rationed?

The assumptions this moneyless model is based on are flawed, thus even in theory, this falls flat.

[Jon the Hat]

This could not work even in theory as there is no effective pricing mechanism. You are effectively putting the same value on all the items, so that each person's work/produce is equal, to be taken out of a communal pot. However, what if the farmer, who has to work 8 hours a day, values his work more highly than a TV maker who only has to work 4 hours a day to meet demand? The farmer will deem a pricing mismatch, possibly deciding to work less and ultimately supply less.

There is also the issue that this is based on the assumption of no scarcity of goods. This as we know is not true, so if the TV maker only has enough goods to make 10 TVs for his village of 30, how are these items rationed?

The assumptions this moneyless model is based on are flawed, thus even in theory, this falls flat.

Your riposte is right on the... errr.... Money.

[BoneDog]

Yes, the materials would still be there, but who's going to make a tv from them if they're not getting anything in return?

I see what you sayin, I only started cos I was just tryin to point out that money isn't the real important thing.

I do think that most people in the world would be happy working just for the basics for their family (including tv's and all) even if money weren't here. I think everyone could still have these things if money was abolished and a good system was put in place where we all payed our way in labour