L.B. Neill
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Moggie,
I share the same timeline with you- I am in Australia. I know how it is to join meetings with am and pm out of sequence.
In Melbourne we have reduced the daily Covid reproductive rate significantly during lockdown.
The labour government under Daniel Andrews had been chastised by business groups and the liberal opposition over this long, long time. And towards the end of austere social distancing, anti mask and ‘freedom groups’ still created street scenes- and their influences appear right wing- and very anti science, and very economy over health.
There have been other nation’s nationals locked down here too- with little support. Local organisations helped. No matter what some say about the provision of aid: that aid meant a lot on an empty belly.
I have seen demonstrations, have been spat on by anti maskers who raised their finger to my mask, and have had anti science statements abound- and its rhetor is from those same people “won’t be ruled and can’t be ruled’: in the sense that personal freedoms ‘trump’ over health the of others. It is anti vax on steroids, but with a pinch of bi partisan monger.
“Help” and “kindness” are the key words to describe our level 4″
Value based activity is certainly helpful. To conduct our behaviour and keep us and others safe is crucial in managing this pandemic- But alas, some will follow that ‘my freedom’ is greater than ‘my consequence’ is leashed in the public discourse.
We are leaving lockdown soon here, and may people follow the science of reducing the r rate. We need to sign the science and the freedom as one- we are not free to behave and infect- but some see it that way… I am reminded of ‘my kingdom for a horse’: not good science.
Moggie, stay safe… and see you around.
L.B
My time lines and zones in the Southern Hemisphere make timely responses seem like a telegram.
I was initially going to respond to ALB on the article I had posted on motivative tendencies regarding voting- oh ALB, thanks for your return post on the matter- added a missing element.
But now after reading the developing thread: Leon Trotsky. Consider what ALB said:
“But don’t just take our word for it. Wait and see and learn by experience that capitalism can never be made to work in the interests of the majority.”
… And I might add: pick any neighbourhood in America. Observe the haves and have nots. Consider and observe the apex distributions of wealth. Use it as a reflexive measure. Then measure it again in 1, 2, 3, 4 years: is it the same? I have a certain feeling based on observation (somewhat academic, and somewhat just me) that things will not have changed. See that same neighbourhood in two or three points in time, still struggling in poverty: now this time a rhetorical statement and not a question… and I have a feeling you know the outcome.
We want the mode to work for the totality of society, not some vanguard, nor majority, but the whole of society. Capitalist reformism can’t give us that. Socialism can.
Voting for a true socialist mode candidate is our only power- as we are locked out of the lobby cash game. The only remaining tool is democratic casting and our vote is not conditional on our wealth (good thing the property and wealth test has gone regarding ballot casting).
Let go of that hat!
“Stay on topic” is a sound argument LT.
All the threads in the forum point to a change: socialism as the logical and material next step. Trump or Biden… coins of capital.
“Try again trumper, but stay on topic this time.”
If you could slow down your keyboard for a while- what you wrote sounds odd, almost an elitist throw away comment that a malcontent might use. I could be wrong, but are you also linking AJ to Trump- how do you construct your narratives (all who disagree with you are placed in the same hat)? You have a really big hat to make that statement.
Alan,
It is more of the same rhetor, the co-op is a cardinal synonym for capital modes of production: it reminds me of ‘the best form of welfare is a job’… or ‘own your own welfare”.
Co-ops are small ‘c’ capitalist formations- and mime their formations on their use of ownership- yes between small producers, but between members of the co-op. If you are not in you are not captured by its benefits.
The new political party (a joined up socialism Wolff advocates) will play the same tropes, and share the crumbs between its members… the best welfare?
“If that party could also become the political voice of a growing worker-coop”: and this sounds like another version of an elite speaking on behalf of those who could well speak for themselves. Elect a leader to express the diverse voices, who in turn, coagulates that chorus of voices into a singular ‘what is best for yo’ narrative that they deem is best for them.
Biden, Trump or the reanimated Lincoln (brought out of cold storage) make the fatal insistence: we are for the people, as long as we decide according to our best interests (the few over the many)… or any capital centred democracy will have the same fatal link to Locke- a small few are enlightened, get enlightenment and capital, then you are in a position of decidability…
An interesting aside on American behavioural motivators when it comes to voting habits.
“In one of the study samples, altruism accounts for 44% of the underlying motivation and personal duty accounts for 23%. Meanwhile, selfish motives account for only 13%. Individuals explain their voting motives as centered on doing well by others and their causes and by their own ethical commitments—their selfish consumption concerns play a very minor role.”
Interesting that self reports of ‘selfish voting’ is 13%! Tapping into the duty and altruism markers can hold potential for a socialist message.
Some of the statistical formulas in the article are esoteric but don’t let it put you off.
Leon,
We know now that in di-party states the left and the right wrestle in the elusive and imagined centre. Oscillating power between the Democrat and the Republican (compromising and complimenting) leads to an antagonist show – and it is a performance for a centre: things go on as usual after any capital election (it is an impossible for the master narrative and the signifying practice of capitalism to change itself).
We can and yet can’t have it both ways: as either/or is more of the same. There will be poverty no matter who wins, and in the long history, this is a constant, it is a c, that is tied and unchanging.
Vote for the lesser or the greater, or withhold your vote- if we argue over it, imagine how conflicted the States must be?
Could either of their presidencies lead to an acceleration of the class struggle: revealing to a divided nation that capital di-partisan states is the same idea but differing masks?
The ethical statement of capital contestants should be: “…For the status quo…” and cast your vote, and go back to work, if you have a job left.
… And while the workers go back to work, or seek it… the regime will still drop $$$s of bombs and decide the pittance to be spent on health care. It is not fascism it is ‘under new management’ and under “old management’ for the new centre is informed by its old centre.
L.B
Alan, thanks. This topic is often neglected in studies on power relations.
And in light of this topic, a glass of fresh water- class snobbery is often lost in power studies of late.
Odd thing is- I was mocked for having a non identifiable accent at Uni- I sounded Irish and foreign at the same time. A Yorkshire mother and a Dublin father.
I posted earlier that Peggy Mc may not understand class poverty- but now I think she does… or I would assume or dare think she does not know (sorry peggy).
I related so much to the post on working class discrimination in tertiary studies. I will hold that- and use it.
It has been an issue for too long.
Are the wigs the Tories don made of real real human hair? Kind of upset the idea of Tory vs Whig.
This issue should not be argued in any democracy- food should not be political- not ever.
If food is political in capital- then food security is a commodity.
Some of us live on a diet of shite and onions, some live on lobster, and some live on air plankton.
It is still a problem 116 years later because the mode has not changed.
Thatcher, Thatcher, the milk snatcher!
I have a vague memory as a little kid of this being played out.
James: is the idea of herd management back on their books… Sterilise the unproductive, the criminal and the dependant!
Take away the food and we become compliant, or more docile to idealogical induction due to nutrient denial.
Give my ability to reproduce for a bowl of soup. Yet it seems to go against market numbers- big numbers requires population growth.
Over 50m turn out already…
I am not into predictions in early voting- and based on the systemic failure of the polls last time… it is a 2 horse race…
As to political violence predictions- let us hope that does not eventuate… I am not the best keyboard warier, I close my eyes at violent words.
Essentialism is a flawed logic.
For example- I am Irish and wear a green hat. Adam wears a green hat- so he must be Irish.
Essentialism is profiling, and racial profiling too. Imagine if you went to court and had been charged with a crime- because your name is Adam, and people called Adam are always guilty. So Adam is guilty too.
That is why measuring power relations and its use is crucial and according to its use- otherwise, those who do not use toxic forms of privilege get tarred with the same brush.
If we use essentialist ideas, we make a fatal error-it assumes an entity has similar characteristics according to its classification- and then is true for all organisms who have the same characteristics- such as as an idea held by a Britain, will be the same as another Britain, according to their appearance.
Imagine this: I go on a cruise ship, and have a holiday. The ship hits trouble and we all bail overboard. In the water, cold and freezing, a life boat appears. The life boat is filled with white hooded men who are using an inverted burning cross to guide them. They see me amid the waves, and amid people of differing cultures. They say to me, based on my skin tone: “come aboard” and do not want others who are not the same to be on their life boat. “No thanks” I would say and take my chances on the waves, with my fellow people of all kinds. I would rock their boat, spit water on their inverted and burning cross, and join the struggling waves with everyone else.
Essentialism struggles with such an idea: because it divides people into groups, labels them according to their characteristics and treats it as a truism. If I related to essentialist truism, I would have got on the pkk life boat according to likeness. But we are not essentialist in nature, so I take to the waves with my kindred- and even that does not say we are all the same.
So avoid using: you are white, so you oppress. But we need to be mindful too- some whites use their supremacy ideology to oppress, such as those who actively support supremacy and apartheid. Last year in New Zealand, the Mosque shootings demonstrated such toxic action.
Privilege as a term has broad usage and application- and any discourse community should unpack it, and be mindful of how it is used.
ALB,
Yes you are right.
She is using it in regard to her class position. She is being self reflexive, some what apologetic to her own position in the hierarchy.
Later on it it takes a moment to consider unearned privilege and its opposite: unearned non- privilege Funny language.
She wants people to know that she is basing her position on her own class, experience.
If we look at her writing, she gives a clear insight in to her social position- seems privileged… and you are right- it is a study based on those who are privileged trying to make sense of it, and atone for it.
And it shows that in America, the generalisation of race is deep. It does fail to account for class divisions too, and poverty.
I posted the articles not to support it hook line and sinker – but demonstrate that the ‘middling people’ are evaluating their position. Deep in the foot notes she says she is basing it on her experience, and to take it out of context, diminishes the experiences of those it was not meant to…
ALB, I starved as a kid (and I do not mean poor and limited resources- I mean starved). I went without food too often. It did not make me privileged- but it made me more aware of those who had abundance- Peggy in some way, can’t see those experiencing real poverty but at least privilege studies is trying to locate an answer. It is a start- next time I will email SPGB website to her organisation.
And so privilege studies (not that it is a whole field of study- but a part whole of social studies) is being used to evaluate violence and its use. It is divided. It can be used depending on who is speaking. Using semiotic theory can counter the binaries of oppression, and by people who know real lived experiencing of oppression.
The Peggy article shows how the notion of privilege is being talked about, but it also requires those who experience non- privilege to find voice in that debate… to be given a centred position to say what it is.
We all know violence happens in groups and between groups. But, we should be mindful of the essentialism that goes with its study.
The thing is, The privilege studies I was introduced to in anti-oppressive practice where we focus on our own unique experience focussed what power we have, or not have. It makes us aware of the power relations in our day to day work.
David Bowie wanted to do a musical theme on 1984, but the trustees of Orwell’s estate said no.
Bowie is gone. And now the author’s moral right (50 years since death?) is close to being spent!
No matter.
This is an often forgot Irish folly into Spanish politics. Dumphy arrives to support the fascists. He gets fired on by the people he wants to support, related to the colour of their shirts. The moral- do not support fascism. The bell tolled for him.
A step toward for Catholics who feel sub-alternative due to their sexuality.
In many jurisdictions- blended families and rainbow families have been around and making families for a long time.
Those who are Catholic had felt torn- grace was theirs but doctrine is conflicted.
Legal coverage: civil union. Little out of sorts- does that mean ecclesiastical law can create a civil law?
I am perplexed- any clues?
