L.B. Neill
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
L.B. Neill
ParticipantPost comment:
Any feedback to my last comment: can it be sensitive to my learning curve, and realise that I do have ‘burn out’ from vicarious first respondent work… and maybe reading laclou and mouffe for too long.
Are most post moderns this difficult- or is it just me!
L.B. Neill
ParticipantDave and Matthew,
Thank you for your corrections.
I guess I have been fighting for so, so long- near on demanding the government pay attention to adequate funding for the sector I work in, that I have entered the ‘parlor room’ that Marcos had mentioned. Maybe it is the New Left- or toiling so hard to have our voice heard, that communication of a simple message has gone with pats on the head: “work harder to help the poor”. I am tired of that middle space, and sacrificing my own socialist principles to earn a living, and to work toward addressing inequitable distributions of wealth.
“at least he is talking to us”- they are sharp words, but I embrace the correction. It is just that I need here and now solutions to what I do, and what many other social sector workers do. We see people die, many times in the grip of social problems generated by capital control- so at time we might enter that parlor room, seek a revisionist agenda, and then feel bad afterwords… socialists are great at communicating, and the message has taken many forms for so long. I want a UBI, but I want it to be not basic, but full and meaningful- an end to poverty and class status. I would love my job to be redundant- but there is so much need,
Socialism informed me, and I am saddened that I negotiate with neoliberal funders, who talk of the price of care, even of funeral. But at times I have to enter that parlor room or space, and state concerns for money, money used to fund a vital response- and it is a grey area.
I am talking to you so I can get perspective, grounding, and renewed focus- so when the grey area presents itself- I can remain centred.
I hope my last post was seen as a act of sheer: what the, and not as a flippant compromise. I am in an oppressive system, yet toil anti-oppressively.
I need to open dialogue with those who are right in their political beliefs, if not to argue and wrestle for even the most basic- but I want so much to argue an end to capital control.
We all toil. At times I may of lost sight of the purpose. Thanks you two, really needed some cold water.
L.B
L.B. Neill
ParticipantThe UBI for some reason I am conflicted: there is a part of me that will see it as a reformist agenda- and a part of me that will see it as an immediate response to those very most in need.
Who created this dilemma: yes a reformist. Who will benefit: a reformist and a population in need.
It is the population in need that worries me; and that population is what I work with- yes I work in an oppressive system in an anti-oppressive way, but this a sting, and is concrete and immediate- it is not some removed debate for me, but if a family puts food in their mouths, or gets through the year- the day.
Then I see it as the parlor room of the left and the right- a polarity of the capital system. But I deal with the fall out, the deaths, and the despair- I could provide you with a clinical white washed narrative (that is best left to the money interested and the philanthropist.
Economic disparity is the conversation of the Left/ and the right; a fair share, or a fair go at making it.
I have to work in those divisions amid the political tirade of either side. What I do, sorry, what many people do who work to try and bring an end to the bullshit, is do something about it.
I do not feel I engaged in the rhetoric of the current system, but try to bring an end to it, in some kind way, some active way.
There has to be some room for communicating, even with the different, the centre, or the obscure right- to teach and to encourage people away from presocial policy and toward prosocial policy. Otherwise people like me in the day to day of it- we are putting off tomorrow time after time- but we need to know it makes a difference, and is being debated! Here I know it is, but be careful of casting some of us as sheer reformists. We still need to live on a wage, and help others until the deep democratic reality comes to fruition…
I solidarity, L.B.
L.B. Neill
ParticipantAlan, I can see the articles: and it would lift those who struggle out of near hour to hour living. However it would be week to week, or year to year subsistence. It would be a granted, apex whim.
By apex, the hierarchical distributions of power.
What if basic income demands was direct democracy demands- democratic socialism- and that the vertical relations of power could be deconstructed into horizontal ‘power-with’ relations, local to global… then there would be no basic- no abundant relations. Okay, Marxism can focus too much on the economic relations, a non discursive thing, but it is discursive, and it can expand to the biopsychsocial.
Some UBIs may seem wonderful, but they should include the social, the political, the biology of who we are: and more, the totalising egalitarian and the ‘dream of democracies to come’.
I am trying to tame the post modern in me, as it is still a contentious thing, even after so long.
ALB, I see those concerns about basic income as a subsidy to the wealthy too. And the link is sobering- but I also see it as lifting those who are the most marginal out of death and subsistence- and this is what capitalism gives us as a solution! Do we choose life over subsistence wages- In the West this is under threat- with more casual, precariat employment, and where I currently live: the ‘cheap casual’! Basic is less, limited, and putting workers out to pasture- like a blind horse who survived the mines.
Basic income and direct democracy? Direct democracy gives us shared abundance- who would vote for basic?
Basic income is a life changing thing for many- but it does not change the relationship between the one who grants it, and the one who receives it. The thing is, direct democracy changes the whole thing. It is not a grant, a thing that can be given or taken away; but a thing that is, and just is!
The prize is- total inclusion in wellness: biopsychsocialpolitcal- all the rest is misdirection/mythdirection!
L.B
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by
L.B. Neill.
L.B. Neill
ParticipantI am late to the debate.
Basic income, or basic participation in the collective means of production: oh there is a sting.
I am reminded of a better welfare payment. And then we ‘manage’ our own health, security, housing, and means to survive with it. It is a individualisation/ responsibilisation trope. The means continue, and the old binary continues under it: capital over labour, centrality over dislocation, active over dormant, and so on…
If I had a basic income under a capital controlled social formation: would I be set aside, paid to be dormant? If I relied on welfare, am I not divorced and alienated from the power/productive means- perhaps.
Why not a power with relation to production- and the means of it activity supporting all, for all, with all- the ideal social- made real.
I like the idea of unconditional basic income- but it is giving itself away in the dichotomous term: basic. The other is abundant.
Abundant over basic is more of the same, and ethical differential into have/ have not, control/ controlled.
It would be nice not to struggle, but it would be nice not to know struggle!
Thank you all,
Thought I would just make a quick minded contribution,
L.B
March 2, 2019 at 12:38 am in reply to: The New Modern and Family Violence as a Political Crisis #183958L.B. Neill
ParticipantMarcos:
Thank you for the link. It has given me a starting point to appreciate – the Althusser in me gives a starting point in my developing sense around the topic, along with the pamphlet- thank you all, very helpful…
Regards
L.B
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 4 months ago by
L.B. Neill.
March 1, 2019 at 10:35 am in reply to: The New Modern and Family Violence as a Political Crisis #183937L.B. Neill
ParticipantHi all, Thanks for your comments:
robbo203: I am warmed by your concern, and the recent reports in the Spanish media. It is about time it becomes an international concern. Every day I work in this field: and I am glad to hear there are other men who challenge the ‘macho’ culture that has brought so much harm to our societies. I spoke as a man concerned about male privilege- however, women occupy this space, and own it- and women do… but is it being heard?
What can socialism do: well, I joined a women’s group- and was invited into the space (a joined up movement) to challenge men who use violence. It also encouraged me to focus on patriarchy- and how to challenge the men I might work with.
In this challenge, I deconstructed and rconfirmed: systems set up by men, centre (men in their attitudes to responding to family violence) women on holding to account for their own safety, and the safety of their kids.
Why should women be held to account, or change their behaviour to avoid male aggression? Why not hold men to account, and the state apparatus focusing on men who are a risk to women and children- it appears dichotomous- male over female. The idea appears liberal: seek your safety against the male main: individualised, responsibilsed and pre-social (capital forms of owning your own safety).
It is good to hear of the protests Robbo- I wanted to alloy my socialism with a course of action: theory in action. I have done this through work, through joining local action groups- it is everything socialism aspires to- thank you for encouraging me to think of it.
Alan: you are so helpful, and deep in the social walk- I could unpack all your points- but they speak right to the points that are before the next meeting.
Capital control is part of coercive control used in patriarchy/ male privilege: it is the entitled ownership of the other.
I would love to be there, and participate, and thank you for the opportunity- but can I say:
Single issue politics cloud things. We are about the whole issue. Do we focus (like the Joined up Movement) on bi-partisan liberation of gender- or radical gender liberation? Do we go with something that is global? But there is so much- and this is a matter close my heart…
Alan: more women’s narratives should belong to this space and at the conference… Thanks, you have helped me.
Marcos: thanks. I see it is a class issue. What I struggle with is men in a class, use violence against their class or other classes. They could be socially constructing their response to the main in capital hegemonic formations- ownership over… I have yet to locate the material you provided, and hopefully I can. But family violence seems to cut, and cut right through social strata, and through so much more
I would like to hear from women on this.
Be kind to your good selves
L.B
February 28, 2019 at 5:23 am in reply to: The New Modern and Family Violence as a Political Crisis #183884L.B. Neill
ParticipantFamily violence is a political crisis. More women are killed in family violence than in acts of domestic terrorism. Yet the world budgets of OECD nations spends more on the ‘terror threat’. I posted earlier on male violence centring on women’s protective behaviours: holding women to account for their own safety. The lefty in me is tired.
Spend more on women’s resistance to male violence- do not blame them for seeking why women have causal factors- seek instead accountability for violence… Yes a tough day at work you may ask: but I must ask.
Spend more on the very real risk of family violence- a political arena, and not just a social concern.
I added this to reflect the political, gendered reality of violence that seems secondary to ‘otherness’ threats.
Family violence is political
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts