L.B. Neill
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks YMS,
This took the form of idealism, because the ideas came ready formed, and (I think) elsewhere in the above passage Marx makes his declaration of having turned Hegel on his head by putting the material first.
And idealism assumes an essentialism in some ways. E.g. The way things are ordered. Any sign according to that order is fixed. It is like saying because I understand it, so you must understand it! We share that sign and there can be no ambiguity. I am master, so you are slave. But Marx turns this reified notion on its head.
But that order or chain of being, or meta narrative, is not fixed. It is subject to material and mental change. I think Marx, like Saussure (semiotics) had been ahead of their time, it is beyond modernism- as it unpacks its own time.
By inverting Hegel, he challenges the fixity of things- and notices it will change – revolution and constant formation and transformation. The history of things will end with the final moment of the class struggle, but then there will be ongoing transformations…
I may be running too far ahead of ‘material first’ but thanks YMS.
Oh dear, History repeating itself.
There was a term used NESB (Non English Speaking Backgrounds) to describe ethnicity according to those who do not speak English as their first language.
Some called this out: what about those who have a minority culture: but their fist language is English?
So CALD (Culturally And Linguistically Diverse) superseded it.
The problem with considering cultural-gender minority in some intersectional studies, is that your culture is in some way is a vulnerability.
Our culture, our gender, our language, our sexuality, our class, our diverse ability is not a position of weakness: it is our strength.
It does not divide us- it makes our conversations with one another so more great.
One size fit all is usually based on mono studies speaking on behalf of others- nominal at best.
An attention cry- LT- an attention cry.
Once the oxygen-mix fades from the return comments, the flame will loose its blue, turn yellow, and then a black- pufffff!
Attention is the key common denominator- reduce it: it moves to the next oxygen mix.
“Klain’s debate rules for candidates, versions of which long ago became public, have been a mainstay of both party’s strategies for these presidential matchups. “Write your ‘dream’ post-debate headline,” one bullet point says. “Dress so no one will talk about it,” says another.”
So a mainstay for both parties debates. It sounds like the man for the job in the ‘business as usual’ camp. “matchup” your president to the ruling winds.
Dress a million dollars and not a billion- Mills for the suit: bills for the unity ticket.
Time for a rewrite: Socialism.
New is good!
I do not know much about Klain- so soon I will find out.
“His deep, varied experience and capacity to work with people all across the political spectrum is precisely what I need…”: and by across the ‘political spectrum’ means across the confined narrative of capital choice.
I know we need some calm… and a calm that is yet to stabilise in the States. But that stability is the same one as before. At times voting is like playing poker with the aces missing. Trump was just a game- and now the loaded deck is in the hands of another. The illusion is we think there are 52 cards: but the reality, we play with 48- the Aces never to seem in the hands of the many. Seek unity in the 48, good man.
And just to break it down some more- no metaphor: “.. exactly what [I] need…”. What I need is a very personal and apex statement- a master signifier. I. And so I in the proper non owned sense should be what ‘we’ need.
Hate being a nerd sometimes: but hey. I, a signifier for a master class statement, and can relate to personal profits/ we, a controlled class statement, can relate to you ( or yous!).
Yous will get over this, and be put to some use: while I make the profit from yous!
Back to work yous…
The teacher has spoken. LT: pick up your history books, and follow the lesson.
(Alan, apologies for the teacher metaphor).
The lesser or greater evil should have no consideration- the evil is the evil- and calling it lessor is akin to pouring perfume on a dung heap.
We should have a sober, honest and reflecting people.
So it remains: read the perfume label LT- a scented dung heap… is still a heap of dung. We can’t polish it up, nor make it smell nice, nor turn it into a sweet sandwich- not swallowing it!
‘^ Yawn, another red herring and straw man, and proof you are a charlatan.’
Leon Trotsky,
I do believe your comments fall into what might count as a professional controversialist – out to draw attention to yourself by belittling people on this forum. I too have experienced your putdowns, but in a dismissive way. At times an ignorance of word use and grandstanding based on a confused centre.
A word salad pops to mind. I do not insult you by saying this. But encourage you to apply the talents you have to a greater and proper use.
We already have enough controversialist in the popular media- so come, I invite you, put your talents to a great and useful cause. When you fight the good fight and use words- an organising principle will help- you will not need to draw attention to yourself: but to a great cause.
Movimiento Socialista is right- other Forums would be less kind to such insults- and after all, this is a place of learning too… So try not to be naughty in the classroom- the rest of us are trying to learn and to teach.
L.B.
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by
“I’m still waiting for evidence that tearing up your ballot leads to change.”
LT, I think the academic approach might be less helpful.. but apt. So I have put a scenario together about oats.
Not academic in a way. but allegorical: oats!
Consider you can self reflect (academic term would be self reflexivity). Okay, it means the observer can experience and then really feel-think what is going on around them- they are observing based on the experience. Not just from a text, but really experience it.
Imagine there are no candidates that reflect your current experience. Okay, hold that. You vote for the one who makes life just that bit easier, only a little. You get two grains of oats more than the last government- great 2 more!
So you cast your vote. And for 4 years you get those oats.
Next time: your leader of 2 oats loses. And you get less oats for the next 4 years.
The incoming president says that some work for oats, and some get oats on welfare. So we will change that- no work: no oats.
So we fight over oats- and others make the profits from our dependence on porridge.
We all deserve elegant food, and that elegance should have no hierarchy- do Trots really need evidence!
Oats may appear on the commodity market- and compared against other prices (oats up/ oats down).
Bread the price of cake. So we eat what we can afford. The luxury of being a Trot- one crumb at a time.
Really loving this boiled leather. has a Stalin taste to it.
Alan – I don’t understand why you are even talking about Biden. After all, if people listened to you and threw away their ballot, which is exactly what the fascists want, b/c a socialist isn’t on the ballot, Trump would be in power. Do you realize that there are people in this world who have put their life on the line just for the right to vote? And you childishly cast away your ballot? How juvenile can you be.
Leon Trotsky,
In Northern England your name would bring some kind of smile. It seems you are singling out Alan in your ‘trump, trump… trump” remarks. What answer do you want? Oh, confirmation that your candidate will bring change in over 500 years- if he lives that long…
… And you have not responded to other comrades- and their questions.
You would do well advocating for socialism and winning its idea: educating rather than dividing.
Take a time to read a comrade:
“the leftwingers such as the Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Leninists and Castroists who are supporting Biden are supporting capitalism and the continuation of capitalism because he is the favourite candidate of Wall Street, the removable resources industries, the silicon valley industries, the firearms industries, the cannabis industries, the telecommunication industry and the big commercial banks, it is like the baseball game, they are placing new pitchers, new catchers and new members on the bases, but they are playing the same game under the same rules” (thanks Movimento Socialista)
Stop focusing on your pet hate, and engage in debate Leon…
ALB,
It is little bits of change- bits that can be observed by the admass in media statements- seeming big! the announcements being advertised would cost more than the actual spend (allegorically speaking)
Marginal.
It may cover a little more. And what about pre-existing condition exclusions?
It will take 5oo years (I sound like I am reading from a novel by Ken McLeod Stone Canal): and then perhaps it will cover most…
Alan,
I certainly blew a gasket- or is that casket!
” we are spreading the “sickness of affluence” to the undeveloped and developing world.”
… And it seems that way. It is so strife- and it impacts through the global society.
Health care, assessments over a life and its economic viability, bound today. And the notion of economic burden is commonplace. When a health decision is based on the productivity of the person, and almost cost neutral to the economy before any aid is given- we are not in the right place, and certainly reform will pay liege to the balances is seeks: balance sheets!
Benefit to who- benefit for what- and which criterion?
The capital decisions will always focus on capital first- are we viable for that hip operation, that life saving medicine. All tied up in patents, all in costly fees, all expensed. A balance sheet on who is worthy of care and who is not. Profits and liabilities.
The fact that health is an issue in public politics and elections… means reform never scratched the sides of this hungry beast.
Okay, I no longer see the rebrands: Obana-Rommey- or who ever care… Reformism will not lead to ‘total care’. Total care is socialists caring. Reformed care is painful increments- and too little and too late.
I have a cough today- I need insurance- and how or who will assist: my funeral is tomorrow…
too little, and too late LT… too ‘f’ing late!
Each of us matter: but the current status; some of us matter. Is it me who matters- is it you… too ‘f’ing late!
Cough today. Dead tomorrow. Too poor to pay. Too late for reform. Reform is always too late…
Imagine going back to Victorian times. Kids diving in vats of acid for coal… Dead and too late… Too ‘f’ing late.
Vic to Biden, to oligarchs who say humanitarian- too FUCKING late.
Leon, do you see the centuries pass? The exploitation go through a push and a pull? Do you see that people still die from lack of care as they have no capital, no insurance, nothing?
From the mines to the precariat- people die needlessly… Bit by bit change still coagulates privilege at the upper level- is your position smug… or are you so confident that 100s of years of reform has brought a near end to the class struggle… nearly there!!! Nearly… but so many will die still, one less than infinity.
How can capital change things- reform for who! TOO FUCKING LATE.
Be safe, and be well
L.B
twc,
‘It may still be Australian federal law that you can “send the government a written message” in the margin of your ballot paper without invalidating a formally filled out vote. ‘
Good to know that the socialist tradition here is operational… possible to write a message in the margins!
Wish a 21 C Melbourne Port campaign could glisten into light before its centenary of that event.
Hopefully the ‘Trumper’ slurs should have faded into a distant feeble echo.
Young Master Smeet,
I appreciate your comment “when done by enough people”. It shows promise for change. Sad though, that even after that 2001 non-voting event that it was business as usual…
When done by enough people it could be as easy as you say:
“The only good president is no president, so vote for no-one…
Socialists organising in the states don’t need to take the presidency, only gain sufficient power for a constitutional convention… (so that’s control of the legislatures of 38 states, easy).”
Not sure of the 38 state though- perhaps the major state, over time, conflation of socialism with numbers, and over several jurisdictions- then we are home.
Forgive my edits, I am out of post times, and have that while some sleep… some awake.
There must be some way out of here said the poet to the thief
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by
