So recently I’ve started leaning towards a more socialist view of politics, appreciating some of the concepts that come with it and with this has sparked debates everywhere I go now (mainly started by me) and I want to share some of the fruits of these debates…

Really?

Britain has employed some socialist aspects into their government, our government actually is more socialist than a lot of western governments, all concepts which Im sure we are happy with (which is why captions like the one to the right baffle me). The introduction of a universal health care system (NHS) and minimum wage are both socialist concepts and not capitalist concepts. Free education likewise. In fact any benefit given from the government to the people is usual a socialist move as capitalism solely concerns itself with profit-making (including lowering wages, maximizing profits etc..). Now this sounds like I am capitalist bashing. I am not saying I am completely anti capitalist either, I think socialism and capitalism need to walk hand in hand; extremes don’t work. Look at what the Egyptians are suggesting, national minimum wage with a maximum cap on wages equal to fifteen times the minimum. There is still room for capitalism to breathe (lets face it, the scientist who goes through years of studying should get paid more than Anne Marie who works at Jane Norman) but the wealth is still distributed more evenly. This should appease anyone who seen socialism and thought “COMMIE”

I want to share my thoughts on socialism with everyone. I feel that socialism however is a sociopolitical standpoint that is rooted deeply in humanitarianism (if we are talking about it in its ideological form…ironically) and I can’t understand why people of the world don’t want to spread wealth more evenly or help aid others at a cost to their only personal wealth. Within capitalism, what people seem to forget is that when one person makes money, someone somewhere has to lose money. When we buy goods from a large corporation, we seem to forget that somewhere along the line, they are gaining more of our wealth and we are losing our wealth, why? so we can adhere to our materialistic ways and buy the latest gadget/car/clothes etc….and it is not only us who lose out but also the workers who aren’t paid enough and the workers for the other companies that supply the parent company etc and the effect goes on and on where the wealth gets taken from us and placed within the corporations. This is why 95 percent of the worlds wealth lies within the top 5 percent.

Now I have no problem with a company making profits but what gets to me is how materialism has won over humanitarianism. I discussed a wage cap with a close friend of mine ( a very pro capitalist friend) and she was disgusted by the idea of taking someone’s rights away to make as much profit as you possibly can and or buying anything we want and can afford. I asked her why, when she earns her more than above average wage, why didn’t she want to try to help other people in the world with it? She again came back with the argument that “who says what I can and can’t have, I worked hard for my money and I wish to spend it. I shouldnt feel guilty for wanting a big mansion or a big car and I shouldnt feel guilty buying it” she continued “if there was for instance, say a 15 x minimum wage cap, what would be the incentive to try harder when you were already there? working harder wont get you any of the things you really want like a big mansion and a fancy car, and the extra money you will be generating will be getting diverted to the poorer, lower wage people (or in the form of a government-owned company, back through to the lower parts of society) how is that fair? I want the money I am due so I can spend it on what I wish”

This got to me as I realised that in a way, her human rights were being breached if I was to decide how much she could make, I’m all for freedom to do what you want and if make money and get a big mansion/ car is up on your list you should be free to aim for this. However, after 20 minutes of internal conflict I came to my new-found conclusion”

I simply said “take for example indians, You think its fair that although the workers are slaving away, the only people reaping the benefits are the owners?” to which she replied “if the costs weren’t so cheap, the product/resource wouldn’t be cheap and they wouldn’t export as much as people would buy other cheaper products as they can get more for their money” to which I simply replied

“since when did the want to buy more for ourselves become greater than the want to help other people?“

I would pay more money to buy more expensive garments if I knew the majority of the profits were making their way back to the people who had made them and ok, I may not be able to buy so many pairs of jeans or I may not be able to buy the most expensive car and will have to settle for a lesser model but when we can survive happily on what we have AND help other people, why is it many people would rather think solely of themselves? I believe it is due to a lack of travel and education; and hence indifference to the suffering of these people, having never witnessed it first hand. This I will discuss in an another article later, back to my point…

I don’t feel that the problem lies solely with the people who are making the money though, I feel that materialism is what drives capitalism and that to solve this we must first change the consumerist culture within which we live. The corporations may be seen as evil for dangling these “needs” for the newest technology in front of our eyes; take for example an iPad or something like this in front of our eyes but we are just as bad buying these products, giving into our greed.

We need to realise that we don’t need a massive house or a fast car (that can only do 70 mph in britain anyway, same as a ford ka) or the latest iPad/phone/clothes when we can survive easily on unbranded clothing, a phone that simply calls and texts and the laptop you’ve had for 2 years that still works fine. When we learn to be happy with less, our spending will be cut down and maybe then we will be less upset when money we don’t need to survive or enjoy life is better spent to improve the near inhuman conditions of other people in the world.

There are currently almost 62 million people in britain. Now almost everyone in britain drinks alcohol (another “need) at about £2.50 a pint/glass with many people drinking excessively. If we all bought one drink on behalf of someone else in the world by donating a palsy amount like this, we would have raised 155 million for charity. Considering how many drinks your average Brit buys on a night out, this isn’t really much and the difference it would make to Peoples lives across the world would be more than the worth of that one extra drink. Even the smallest change in our lives could make the biggest change in theirs

‘The general point is very clear in this country – that is that it takes a pretty serious crime to get yourself sent to prison. And as a result you have broken the contract with society to such a serious extent that you have lost all of those rights – your liberty and your right to vote.’ David Davis mp for haltemprice and howden

Britain has been asked by the European court of human rights to change the law and give all prisoners and all of a sudden Britain is in uproar. I mean the top bankers are still getting their big fat bonuses but apparently this is more important for now. It seems Britain’s pride is at stake due to our laws being decided by foreign judges.

And now for the counter argument, wont take much to knock this down…

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/08/28/innocent-man-spent-three-months-in-jail-after-cctv-blunder-cops-mistook-rose-for-knife-86908-22520059/

A story about a man being jailed for 3 months for holding a rose and being wrongly accused. or for the cynics out there…

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6956044.ece

the story about a man who smashed a cricket bat over the head of  an intruder in his house, an intruder who threatened to kill him and tied up his family, making them crawl around the house. If it was my family, I know I would do the same. even the judge said he was a brave man.

I think this alone should be enough to prove Mr Davis wrong.

The thing to remember with this situation is that when we think prisoners we think murderers but the most common reason for imprisonment is possession of drugs. Cannabis alone, being a class b drug can mean anything from a warning up to a 5 year jail sentence (BBC 26/01/09) the possession of which is far less dangerous than the rampaging hordes of drunks on a night out in Britain. Yet they are willing to take the rights from those who merely possess cannabis over hardcore binge drinkers who cause more problems for the country. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t condone Cannabis, but I recognise that alcohol is a far worse drug, causing Britain NHS alone 2.7 billion. This isn’t in addition to the violence and aggression it spawns, the damage done by drunks in the street or any other alcohol related problems. In contrast to this, it has been stated:

“Legalising cannabis and selling it alongside cigarettes and alcohol would cut crime and costs to the NHS, Britain’s leading expert on the drug has said. Professor Roger Pertwee said that a system that legalises cannabis with very strict regulations ‘could be the way forward’.” (Daily Mail 2010)” However, this is going slightly off course. As a country of proud liberalists, we should be ashamed to be ruining our own legacy…

The European court of human rights was initially set up by Winston Churchill, under the authority of parliament to defend human rights, the rights of which were often non existent and/or had been abused in the run up and during the second world war. This is why the court in Strasbourg was set up. To not listen to the very court we installed goes against all the efforts promoting human rights in Europe

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

Looking at this article from the universal declaration of human rights, can it not be very feasibly be argued that restricting a prisoners right to vote is a breach of human rights? We pride ourselves as a country on being more liberal like I mentioned earlier yet this is exactly the attitude displayed by a lot of the less liberal countries Britain so commonly complains about. what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

We call ourselves democratic and yet looking at the definition of democratic, denying the rights of a prisoner to vote seems anything but democratic:

Democracy is a form of political organization in which all people, through consensus, direct referendum, or elected representatives exercise equal control over the matters which affect their interests.

We are going backwards as a people. Denying prisoners the right to vote not only treats them as substandard but is in direct contrast to the steps taken forward by this country. As for the politicians saying that the people in these jails shouldn’t have the right to vote, I leave them this question. If a survey was done in the country as to who we should jail, the politician who had used the tax payers money to suit their own needs (be it an extension, porn or whatever else they think they can claim) or the heavy drug user who is just down in life, maybe not doing the right thing but not harming anyone really minus some petty theft, who would the country choose? Or you could choose Mr Blair for fabricating a war, spending tax payers money on a pointless expedition into the middle east if you want a better example.

OK, so I don’t know if this has been mentioned before, but why is it that Americans call black Americans “African Americans” and not just Americans? Are they afraid of just calling them black? And since when did calling someone black or white become racist? This isn’t just a white man’s opinion (as in me) but I have found this argument from both black and white people that calling someone black or white can be racist. I feel a rant coming on…

To any white American who uses the term “African American”

I feel I must from this moment on refer to you as European American…not that it matters where you are from or your ancestors are from but it seems only fair to categorise you along with all the other white people, by stating that somewhere along the line you were originally from the predominantly white continent. Hopefully this will give some initial insight as to why “African American” is stupid

Do you know what we should call black people from America? Americans. Doesn’t that simply make more sense. If they have African ancestry they can tell you that in their own time but don’t assume that they do. If you go far back enough we all descended from Africa and calling us all African (insert continent) would just be silly.  As for the native Americans (who by the white Americans definition are the only one with a claim to the title “Americans” as everyone else is of some other decent) why call them native? One such definition for native is “belonging to one by birth; “my native land”; “one’s native language” ” which suggests that even white Americans aren’t really Americans after all as the only people belonging to America are the natives of America.

As to anyone who thinks this article is racist…When we describe someone, if we state by hair colour, it’s not racist to say “the girl with black hair” or “the white haired, old guy” for example. So when describing someone, why is it racist to mention the colour of their skin, which would be a defining feature of most people. If it helps narrow down the person you are talking about, use the skin colour. I feel its actually more racist to not use colours to describe skin “within reason”, To somehow act as if there is no skin colour, as this avoidance of skin colour suggests that in fact you don’t want to say what colour he or she is due to not wanting to offend…why would you be worried of offending them unless you found it offensive yourself? If saying black or white is offensive, that makes you the racist

 



Being Scottish born I’ve grown up with a lot of symbols of nationhood surrounding my upbringing. Be it from simply watching Braveheart to seeing the “tartan army” march to the football games . We have a proud heritage of keeping our lands from the English, fighting the English, fighting the Vikings…freedom etc etc…Our country is filled with nationalists, arguing for a more devolved government, separate from England. Some even go so far as to demand Scottish independence. I am proud to be British, and more than that, I am proud to be European. One day I wish to be proud to be human. Let me explain…..

Nationalism is not something that is actually there like trees or water but rather a socially constructed artefact by human beings. Other examples of social constructed ideas are our thoughts on women in the 18th century and how they were “clearly” inferior to men. Something that is socially constructed like this is only true because we say it is and it doesn’t have to be this way and this was shown by the change in our thinking towards women in the 20th century.  I am not Scottish because my blood or my features say so, but rather simply because of my fortune to be born in this country, simply because I was born on a place in the map that was encompassed by the Scottish borderline. Our sense of nationhood comes from a combination of cultural upbringing and a line drawn on a map by old rulers and is as false as our reasons for the Iraq war, both having been fabricated from nothing. We use this nationality as an excuse to be racist, to hate the English or dislike foreigners taking our jobs. but what makes the English English and the foreigners foreigners? Looking at England, the only thing separating us is our border, minus this we are almost identical. If the rulers of old hadn’t drawn this line between us and we had stayed as one country would this hatred, this separation, still exist?

We are nationalists because we are taught from an early age that we are Scottish and they are English. Why abide by the borders written by these aged rulers? Why let this separate us? There are people in my country asking for an independent Scotland, for a more devolved government and yet this wouldn’t be happening if this line hadn’t been drawn in centuries past. Devolution is exactly what separating is, we should be uniting. The thing with nationalism is that its not just us…The Indians and the Pakistanis have a dislike for each other and yet they lived together for years without as much hatred as now. By putting the border in place they weren’t all Indians any more, now they had a difference between them.  Look at Palestine, the moment that line was drawn, the war had started. In 1947 when the UN decided to make a partition (a border basically) people all of a sudden weren’t under one country. I would love to see the borders be thrown down. To see man greet man as one nationality, Humans.

The European Union is a step forward in the history of man. The borders have almost been thrown down, not entirely but to an extent, more so than has ever been seen before. Right now sadly it is in turmoil due to the recession and yet even in this time I have seen some truly amazing happenings. Germany gave £19 billion of its own tax payers money to help out Greece. The Germans are in uproar and yet I feel they should be proud, extremely proud. If it was a German city that needed this money, they would have paid it no questions asked but it wasn’t, it was Greece. Yet, they paid it anyway (OK so maybe to save their own necks to an extent but still) To help another country like that is almost like saying “we are one country, Europe, and we will help you.” The German government did something amazing that went unrecognised by Europe as we complained of our own problems (oh no, Britain had to pay £650 million to help, how dare we help out other humans????) I am proud to be European, to be part of the union that can give £19 billion to another country in the same union and although I haven’t even been to Germany, I respect them as Europeans, and for now as Germans (the label won’t be leaving them any time soon).

I understand that I was so lucky to be born in Britain with our welfare system, free education (In Scotland at least) and free healthcare. Yet why is this only available to people born in our little island? What difference does it make where the hell in the world you were born? It shouldn’t matter, People here think they have a right over foreigners to this welfare system. Because you paid taxes? Only because you had the ability to pay the high taxes as you had the fortune of being born into this part of the world, being born into a rich country filled with opportunity and money. For all the people who think like this, do you think you would still have the same rights had you been born in a third world country? And yet how different do you think you would be as a person? You would be labelled differently but that label is man-made, as is our borders and our countries and our sense of nationalism.  Should we not be sharing all the benefits of civilisation?

I may be naive, and maybe a bit of an idealist when I think like this and I do already realise this but I hope one day we do to nationalities what we did to female oppression and change our views and our assumptions on it. We are only our given nationalities due to pre based assumptions and human labelling and we have the ability to realise that this doesn’t have to be the case, we can call ourselves whatever we want, and claim the nationality of whatever we want as its something we created, nationality. It is not impossible either, many people thought like this about the feminist movement and yet look at how far that movement has come.  One day I hope to transcend my Scottish labelling and hopefully become British, or maybe even European. One day, I will be human…the one label we may actually be justified in having but I fear I will be long gone before that day comes.

 

So I have finally gotten to grips with this thing and I can now start writing My posts here so watch this space. If indeed anyone is actually watching