L.B. Neill
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Okay- Bretons aside: The Celts then, or maybe be particular… the…
NO OTHER PREVIOUS APPLICANTS NEEDS APPLY (and I hope it becomes less definable to say who is, and who is not applicable to live in Britain- all not some
…
Hard to define such a thing as Britain,
It would be better defined as part of Europe, as part of a global wide community, as part of an ecology- and not a gated village. I did not say ecological galactic system- but why stop there.
A world without enclaves and without ethnic differentiation is so desired right now.
ALB, I like onions, and have sold them: and along with wine in a beer market- I had to peddle so much harder to break through-Â glad my early work experience gave me that stamina
🙂
MAKE BRITAIN GREAT AGAIN
Since Brexit we are calling for expressions of interest into imperial might!
WE ARE BUT A TINY NATION
And this new career opportunity is for all those who aspire to our great colonial past!
APPLY NOW
Foreigners need not apply.
(See our bias exemption number approving the right to refuse entry and the right to refuse migrants to stay)
IF YOU ARE THE RIGHT CANDITATE!
Please send your CV to the Ministry of Xenophobia
NO BRETON WILL BE REFUSED (no socialist need apply…disclaimer)
This is how it sounds to me- selling the empire. And to a bias and narrow audience sample (those who fill it in and express their bias and nationalism; and those who walk past it [polls!])). If this was an add, someone should express an objection. To me indigenous workers are being encouraged to discriminate against host workers (should be no division and no antagonism between workers).
The percolation of anti mask and scientific disregard continues regarding COVID safety…
I know it was warm yesterday- but really!
When leisure is primacy over lives: freedom is spent using the currency of a life- I am so pissed off at this act of ‘personal freedom’ with such disregard for the health of our community.
Thanks Marcos. Independent thinking is so crucial in this age- and the ones before it…
I remember some once said: learn everything and forget it- not that we just forget it, but that we are not ruled by it… Always learn, and question.
I am going to look up Sariento and Hostas-
Adios mi amigo!
Thomas More,
Feudalism made sense in its time. Expand or be sub alternative to the other more powerful competitor. In order to exercise control in the lack of a central ruling over-king, feudal kingdoms competed for that over arching idea- uniting under a central controlling family and establishing a patrilinear system.
Each winner will burn the others books and culture- feudal capture. Ch’in is no different to Henry VII et al. Each winner will tell hagiographers what to write.
To bring it to a more today usage: let the corporate wars begin! The winner gets a headline.
That’s it- I lack sleep!
LB
Alb,
“by divorcing the producers from their means of production converts them into wage earners”
And:
“Roman proletarians became, not wage labourers but a mob of do-nothings more abject than the former “poor whites” in the southern country of the United States, and alongside of them there developed a mode of production which was not capitalist but dependent upon slavery”
And this is the current condition of most of the World’s population. If we take a broad sweep of the means of ownership (really means of production), then it is owned by some, and controlled by… some.
The loss of the commons for tilling, even if it was the last bastion of subsistence to survive the ravishes of ownership, is repeated right through the globe- alienation from the means of production.
The current age, and I dare say the Tudor vagabond laws agree-” let us put the idle to work and for profit! ”
And now we have a culture of ‘dole bludger’ blaming the unemployed for their own alienation, the best welfare is a job!
The Tudor Vagrancy Laws seem so similar. The Capital Revolution seems old indeed- starting with ownership of the means to live…
The Spirit of Capitalism has it phases- but it is the successive alienation through history that seems to continue our current ‘wage slave problem’. Or indeed, bonded labour in parts of the world that some in the West say: oh my gosh!
I wanted to discuss the Tudor rev- and put some of history to some use- but for some reason, needed to say this!
I have appreciated seeing this thread unfold- and in its unfolding, ownership and accumulation of wealth and privilege seems older than the perceived start date…
Another thing for me to research!
LB
Marcos,
You once told me the truth hurts. I think back in 2018. I was a novice on SPGB forum. I was a leftie in seeking fair distributions of wealth, seeking the impossible: reform!
Biden Vs Trump is a most viewed kind of NBA, or a wrestling sensation.
Left wrestles with right- and same again next election- ratings should be high… popcorn sales through the roof! All the bunting and colours!
The fact that Wall Street support Biden- shows that it becomes a capital entertainment event. Some will adore the winner, and weep for the loser- but people will die, as before, with no health care.
COVID is really out of control, really. But the ruling elite will seek one who represents them who will don a mask- but then don a black boot.
Be kind to your good self
LB
“Trump and Melania test positive for COVID-19
Poetic justice”
And I thought I would end my Friday with a little cheek with my last post!
The anti science narratives of the Trump regime have been relentless- can anyone he infected sue! Or cite his dismissals of health advice as a capital effect- thus sue (class action) the ‘keep the economy open’ supporters.
The business as usual old guard need some accountability- but the news did cause a tiny: told ya!
Thanks Alan,
I was moved by ‘Care and Repair’.
Yet, felt somewhat down. The use of money persisted even in that notion of the future.
Every epoch takes some of it traces into the next one.
Alas.
However, I was warm.
A COVID-23, lets hope not! Hate to think any economy, like war economies, is built on fighting threats consistently!
Or as Marcos made a reference earlier 2×2= 5 or 4 (or 1984)
Oh- and where did the rich go! They retreated into some affluent paradise- and just disappear! I sense a sequel…
Be safe,
LB
Alan ,
I need to go to RTE and see the current situation!
I have been in lockdown- my brother did not say a thing over the phone!
Its what you get for migrating : disfranchised and late news… ‘Cerns him right, seeking a a bit of sun…Â is what the State said… so they leave me out in the cold- brother and all!
It is an interesting final remark upon my stance- one which seems to find no rest.
But “educate oneself about history, society, science, politics, philosophy…” seems to sit well with me. What a similarity we can share. But I put it in the affirmative: and not bad for a thoughtless rock am I! Don’ answer that!
We can leave it there, and thankyou, I appreciate your views and your debate… I am still on a learning curve, and hope it continues.
LB
Oh LBird,
Both the mental and the material matter. The terms ‘matter’ (what counts for something) and ‘matter’ (a tangible substance, even if we can’t see it) are linguistic units. If we keep collapsing their significance- and reducing them into even small, less able to sign parts- the debate will find no closure, and all becomes a relativism “saying A is as good as B is as good as .C”
We are all in it together, working it out, and making it count for something.
Material and mental need each other. If I think then my neurons fire: a mental material process. I am able to dance because I am physical, and I dance as a dancer. I am a poor dancer- I dance like Mr Bean, poorly.
We are not passive elements- or why seek to educate that we can consciously change the mode of production? The base was created, and yes, the base can be changed.
I hope my part in this debate was helpful- you know, as ALB may have clarified:
“In section 3 of Volume I of Capital, Marx says that a commodity has two forms: “a physical or natural form, and a value form” and goes on:
”The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition. Turn and examine a single commodity, by itself, as we will, yet in so far as it remains an object of value, it seems impossible to grasp it. If, however, we bear in mind that the value of commodities has a purely social reality and that they acquire this reality only in so far as they are expressions or embodiments of one identical social substance, viz., human labour, it follows as a matter of course, that value can only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity”
So. Marx does indeed say that value has a “purely social reality” in that it is an expression of a non-physical social relation. But this not mean that its magnitude is purely arbitrary and can be changed by a vote or some other act of collective will. It depends, as he says, on the amount of socially necessary labour that has been embodied in it.
Marxian economics certainly does not hold that the value of a commodity depends on what people collectively decide it is (though there is a school of capitalist economic theory that does hold that view).
And it certainly does mean that the other form of a commodity — its “physical or natural form” —  also has a “purely social reality” and so even less that the “matter” (Marx’s term) which forms its substance  can be decided or changed by a vote.”
I think he puts it well- or puts it in a way that is helpful to me.
Metaphors are funny things- and encourage memory and thought- and yet might differ depending on who uses them and with what intention.
I think along the way the argument dived into so much, and with so little room… but I am glad to have debated with you , and the others. We learn from it.
Be well
LB,
Just wanted to say to all,
Thanks for the challenge- I discovered so much and about how I am tracking and developing in Socialist thought. Even when the challenge gets near on personal- it is ideas being wrestled- and so much pops up!
I am about to embark on reading Capital with a more astute reading posture … I will post if I run in to any complexes…
🙂 thanks
LB- no need to use the Neill- sounds formal.
LBird,
Yes it certainly provided for debate- it is important to any healthy democratic society.
When I discuss social science and its usefulness- it is to communicate how important it can be to a healthy social formation (people and persons).
Norman Fairclouth is a useful example of how Marxism and social science open up the field of discourse in helping professions. He founded a particular methods, Critical Discourse, that are significantly utilised in social work, counselling and social research. You can trace the development of his ideas back to to some of Foucault, and yet further back (using the bibliography or references in each test), and at many points arrive to Marx, leading to the development of CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis). You see, traces of Marx find their way into helping profession journals often- if he is not referenced directly, then indirectly through more recent critiques.
Disciplines do form specialised ways of working, and borrow from each other too.
Mental and the material is like saying: how do we tell the dancer from the dance. Matter will exist even if we fail to even see it- but when we do see it and cognise it, we develop schemas, thoughts and representations about it. Yes we socially construct democracy, and we are socially informed by it through our community. It is a sociopolitical activity- it is socially mediated by a community- otherwise we would not be able to think in its terms.
And that is the best I can do early in the morning on the other side of the globe- less my brain quits its job and leaves me stranded.
Stay safe,
Thanks ALB
Foucault can be difficult- some ideas useful: some not!
It has a series of methods or use that can shed light on researching meaning making practices in a culturally sensitive way and how this is lived out in practice- useful for assessing social problems/solutions.
But may not be useful in astrophysics- best left to the hard sciences and the astrophysicists and astronomers- I do not think democracy can decide on the physical forces of an event horizon: but physicists can formulate their discoveries (postulations) for us to consider.
🙂
