# Factionalism/Sectarianism on Urban and beyond...



## chilango (Mar 15, 2012)

I've noticed on a couple of threads a) age old arguments between "trots" and "anarchists" or "tankies" vs "the rest" and b) a few people getting fed up of this and bemoaning the growth of factionalism in the threads.

Personally, I think a few points are worth raising:

1/ Urban doesn't really mirror the real world. I don't know anyone in my day to day life who would have a clue or give a shit about these arguments. So there's no oppurtunity.

2/ On the rare occasion when I find a "trot" (or whatever) at my workplace etc. it's just such a pleasure to have someone to chat to about "Political stuff" that bickering doesn't even cross our minds.

3/ Petty bickering has been going on on Urban forever. When I first joined The endless Trot vs. Anarchist sniping was waaaay worse (I include my own actions in this). The SWP (and Workers Power!) were here in numbers then too adding extra MSG to mix. 

4/ It's Urban, and the internet, if wasn't about political dogma, it'd be about Apple fanbois or music or Linux or something. Bickering passes the time at work/whilst cooking the dinner/feeding the baby/whatever


----------



## chilango (Mar 15, 2012)

...though to be fair re-hashing the same old arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again withoug adding anything new is boring though.

and_ boredom is always counter-revolutionary._


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

actually don't think there is that much bickering these days, fuck I can't even be arsed and I used to love that crap. 

most of the threads of late have been about general assaults on the working class, so things tend to be a lot more focused on events now than on say Kronstadt (not that there isn't a cold place in hell for those trot swine!  )

whilst the theory threads are more on an abstract level than that in recent years.

also I think articul8's labour membership is possibly the most unifying factor on urban's politics in it's history.


----------



## killer b (Mar 15, 2012)

you forget moon23


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2012)

I think it's fair to say that in the real world (and increasingly on here) sensible trots, anarchos, tankies, and left reformists have more in common with each other in terms of immeadiate strategy and goals than the loon wings of each tendency with their own sensible wings.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 15, 2012)

Fair to say that in the real world a number of posters on here don't exist


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Fair to say that in the real world a number of posters on here don't exist


 
That's true as well


----------



## co-op (Mar 15, 2012)

chilango said:


> and_ boredom is always counter-revolutionary._


 
*launches into furious denunciation of Debord and situationism*


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

what i've also noticed is people being jumped on for not knowing enough stuff. i'm sure i've done it myself so i'm including my own actions in this.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think it's fair to say that in the real world (and increasingly on here) sensible trots, anarchos, tankies, and left reformists have more in common with each other in terms of immeadiate strategy and goals than the loon wings of each tendency with their own sensible wings.


 
yeah exactly. it's always been the case though. i prefer going on here to talk politics etc than somewhere like revleft  where there are plenty of trots (or whatever) but they're almost all mental


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

what i've noticed is people being jumped on for claiming to know more than they actually know about something - there's nothing wrong with that, in fact it's absolutely necessary, otherwise people can go about spreading misinformation about things purely for the purpose of making themselves appear clever - and especially where said people are seen as knowledgable by others in the first place (intellectual hierarchies that are common in places like this etc..) , that can be even worse, as folk just accept whatever shite they come out with


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

sure and there's nothing wrong with that, but i was mostly on about newbies or other posters coming into the politics forum. 





love detective said:


> what i've noticed is people being jumped on for claiming to know more than they actually know about something - there's nothing wrong with that, in fact it's absolutely necessary, otherwise people can go about spreading misinformation about things purely for the purpose of making themselves appear clever - and especially where said people are seen as knowledgable by others in the first place (intellectual hierarchies that are common in places like this etc..) , that can be even worse, as folk just accept whatever shite they come out with


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

does anyone who is actually new ever actually join here anymore?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 15, 2012)

When the common enemy is so ridiculously powerful, it's much easier to win petty victories over each other. I'm sure the same behaviour happens in monkey society.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> does anyone who is actually new ever actually join here anymore?


All the time (signup rates have been constant for years, and still are AFAIK).
They just don't post much.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> yeah exactly. it's always been the case though. i prefer going on here to talk politics etc than somewhere like revleft  where there are plenty of trots (or whatever) but they're almost all mental


 
I think it is mostly M-L types to be found there, or who are most dominant. One of the most level-headed, sanest people I've chatted to over there is a hardcore Stalinist (Hoxhaist). Another is Trot, both living in the US.

A lot of it is American teenagers though, who are as naive and confused as fuck.

To be fair, Maoist Third-Worldists (that 'tendency' I mentioned on another thread) are banhammered upon detection.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

Crispy said:


> When the common enemy is so ridiculously powerful, it's much easier to win petty victories over each other. I'm sure the same behaviour happens in monkey society.


 
incorrect stuff shouldn't be challenged as the proliferation of misinformation is a mighty weapon with which we strike down ridiculously powerful enemies

edit: seriously though, i thought the point of places like this was to pool expertise, so that everyone benefits by debates/collision with the truth etc.. etc..

_"But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."_


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

Crispy said:


> All the time (signup rates have been constant for years, and still are AFAIK).
> They just don't post much.


 
so presumably they don't get jumped on if they are not actually posting (although can appreciate why they might not bother posting)


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> incorrect stuff shouldn't be challenged as the proliferation of misinformation is a mighty weapon with which we strike down ridiculously powerful enemies
> 
> edit: seriously though, i thought the point of places like this was to pool expertise, so that everyone benefits by debates/collision with the truth etc.. etc..


 
yeah, i wasn't saying that incorrect stuff shouldn't be challenged! i do it if i think someones talking crap and i'd hope that if i was talking crap someone would do the same


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

tbh at times, I'm probably one of the people ld is talking about. I agree with him, though.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

yep same here on both


----------



## chilango (Mar 15, 2012)

Crispy said:


> When the common enemy is so ridiculously powerful, it's much easier to win petty victories over each other. I'm sure the same behaviour happens in monkey society.


 
You reckon?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 15, 2012)

You need a very thick skin to engage here, even if you're a long-term member of good social standing. You have to be utterly fearless or rather stupid, if you're a newbie. (EDIT: OR be incredibly smart and well-read)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

Speaking for myself, at times I post ideas or thoughts that are not fully thought through, and I probably don't signal as much clearly enough - perhaps don't realise that they are not thought through either at times. 

It is in fact counter-productive, because people then start to question you when you really _do_ know what you're talking about, which is annoying.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

yeah, there's nothing wrong with people calling you out if you're talking shit. i actually like that aspect of it because i've been on (non politics related) forums where people get away with talking complete crap because you can pretty much get banned for disagreeing with them. i've been told i've been talking crap plenty of times on here and i don't see anything wrong with it that much really.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

There is also the danger of posting quickly from work. That gets me into trouble sometimes as nuances tend to be lost.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 15, 2012)

Crispy said:


> You need a very thick skin to engage here, even if you're a long-term member of good social standing. You have to be utterly fearless or rather stupid, if you're a newbie. (EDIT: OR be incredibly smart and well-read)


I think some newbies take one look and then run away!


----------



## chilango (Mar 15, 2012)

...but it's not just the "robust" nature of the debate. I think that generally people are pretty well-mannered on here, its the often arcane, almost ritualised, butting of dogmatic heads over "dead blokes with beards" that I think gets some peoples' backs up.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 15, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I think some newbies take one look and then run away!


Can't say I'd blame them!


----------



## Crispy (Mar 15, 2012)

chilango said:


> ...but it's not just the "robust" nature of the debate. I think that generally people are pretty well-mannered on here, its the often arcane, almost ritualised, butting of dogmatic heads over "dead blokes with beards" that I think gets some peoples' backs up.


That's nowhere near as bad as it used to be, tbf.


----------



## chilango (Mar 15, 2012)

Crispy said:


> That's nowhere near as bad as it used to be, tbf.


 
No, it's not.

I think that reflects how things have moved on IRL.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

I guess there are probably a fair few posters here (not just newbies) who would like to post in the politics and theory forums, but are too scared to.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

chilango said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> I think that reflects how things have moved on IRL.


yeah a complete inversion of it!

people are much more interested in Marx in real life these days than compared to say about 10-15 years ago


----------



## Crispy (Mar 15, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I guess there are probably a fair few posters here (not just newbies) who would like to post in the politics and theory forums, but are too scared to.


I know this for a fact.


----------



## chilango (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> yeah a complete inversion of it!
> 
> people are much more interested in Marx in real life these days than compared to say about 10-15 years ago


 
Perhaps.

But this interest isn't being shaped by Lefty groups, which is a shift. The SWP et al are much, much less visible IRL than they were 20 years ago.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

thank fuck to both your points!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> yeah a complete inversion of it!
> 
> people are much more interested in Marx in real life these days than compared to say about 10-15 years ago


Yep, totally agree with this. There is a certain defence of capitalism - that it may be a flawed system, but it's the best there is, kind of like Churchill's take on democracy - that was common before 2008, but really isn't tenable any more. (It never was tenable, imo, but now the people who thought it was think that too.)


----------



## chilango (Mar 15, 2012)

This thread has taken a somewhat unexpectedly cheerful direction!


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> yeah a complete inversion of it!
> 
> people are much more interested in Marx in real life these days than compared to say about 10-15 years ago


 
With regard to discussion on Urban or in real life?  Because not in my neck of the woods.  My workmates, friends etc have probably only heard of him, and never read him, or being even interested in doing so.  The subject almost never comes up though tbf.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

chilango said:


> This thread has taken a somewhat unexpectedly cheerful direction!


The U75 paradox: If you want to avoid a bunfight, start a thread about bunfights.


----------



## chilango (Mar 15, 2012)

Marx has been somewhat liberated from "Marxism" in polite conversation. You can bring Marx up in discussion without people picturing a student selling Trotskyist newspapers on the High Street (something that is becoming a scene from days gone by now). That is a good thing. the danger is of course of a certain "depoliticisation" of Marx, and his recuperation. We shall see.


----------



## JHE (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep, totally agree with this. There is a certain defence of capitalism - that it may be a flawed system, but it's the best there is, kind of like Churchill's take on democracy - that was common before 2008, but really isn't tenable any more.


 
You are kidding yourself, Jesus.  The notion of socialism as an alternative has continued to decline.  In this part of the world, there are fewer socialists (never mind the important differences between them, for a mo) than for many generations.  Without a widely understood notion of a believable socialist future, capitalism (with this that or the other reform) remains not just the best available system, but the only possible system.


----------



## chilango (Mar 15, 2012)

JHE said:


> You are kidding yourself, Jesus. The notion of socialism as an alternative has continued to decline. In this part of the world, there are fewer socialists (never mind the important differences between them, for a mo) than for many generations. Without a widely understood notion of a believable socialist future, capitalism (with this that or the other reform) remains not just the best available system, but the only possible system.


 
Increased credibility for Marx's critique of Capitalism doesn't mean, and clearly hasn't meant,  an equal credibility for his proposed solutions...


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

chilango said:


> Marx has been somewhat liberated from "Marxism" in polite conversation. You can bring Marx up in discussion without people picturing a student selling Trotskyist newspapers on the High Street (something that is becoming a scene from days gone by now). That is a good thing. the danger is of course of a certain "depoliticisation" of Marx, and his recuperation. We shall see.


 
That wouldn't be my experience within my everyday life, although I might recognise it elsewhere. Not necessarily seeing him in a negative light, but just not giving a shit either way. But that's just me being anecdotal. With my tongue firmly place in  my cheek, I think perhaps Leninists would refer to my nearest and dearest as being among the most backward sections of the class. Something then, I would take as a compliment.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> With regard to discussion on Urban or in real life? Because not in my neck of the woods. My workmates, friends etc have probably only heard of him, and never read him, or being even interested in doing so. The subject almost never comes up though tbf.


 
No I meant there are more people interested in Marx in real life these days than there was say 5-10 years ago. this doesn't mean that everyone and everywhere is saturated by and with him - just that interest in him is much higher now in relative terms than it was 5-10 years ago. the current crisis has brought about quite a resurgence in interest, not just from those who are anti-capitalism but those who are pro-capitalism and actually want to scratch the surface a bit more to try to come to terms with what's going on around us. Marx crops up quite a bit in the FT these days for example, which would be unheard off 5 years ago (at least in a non-derogatory way) - even chief economists at investment banks like UBS are putting out research notes/economic pieces pointing to the utility of Marx's work - this is not because they want to understand what really makes capitalism tick in order to destroy it, but to try to get some insights into how they could perhaps save it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

JHE said:


> You are kidding yourself, Jesus. The notion of socialism as an alternative has continued to decline. In this part of the world, there are fewer socialists (never mind the important differences between them, for a mo) than for many generations. Without a widely understood notion of a believable socialist future, capitalism (with this that or the other reform) remains not just the best available system, but the only possible system.


I'm not kidding myself that the old justifications for capitalism from people I know are no longer tenable and they are having to think of alternatives. Anecdotal, sure, but it is something I have observed. 'Carry on with the same' simply isn't a credible pov.

Also, ld above is quite right - _capitalists_ are now increasingly going back to Marx.


----------



## JimW (Mar 15, 2012)

Maybe I read to many US-dominated forums, but there's an annoying trend I presume is influenced by the right libertarians to claim that the problems of the current crisis etc. are because it's not 'pure' capitalism, which seems like a slip back from the general understanding that the state worked in capital's interests I recall when younger.


----------



## JHE (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not kidding myself that the old justifications for capitalism from people I know are no longer tenable and they are having to think of alternatives. Anecdotal, sure, but it is something I have observed.


 
Have you also observed that among very many people - and, crucially, especially among the young - the idea of a socialist society is not so much rejected as simply absent?  Ideas that for generations animated a significant political minority are largely just not there any more.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

your conflating a study of capitalism with socialism - everyone here is talking about the former, only you are talking about the later


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> No I meant there are more people interested in Marx in real life these days than there was say 5-10 years ago - this doesn't mean that everyone and everywhere is saturated by and with him - just that interest in him is much higher now in relative terms than it was 5-10 years ago. the current crisis has brought about quite a resurgence in interest, not just from those who are anti-capitalism but those who are pro-capitalism and actually want to scratch the surface a bit more to try to come to terms with what's going on around us. Marx crops up quite a bit in the FT these days for example, which would be unheard off 5 years ago (at least in a non-derogatory way) - even chief economists at investment banks like UBS are putting out research notes/economic pieces pointing to the utility of Marx's work - this is not because they want to understand what really makes capitalism tick in order to destroy it, but to try to get some insights into how they could perhaps save it


 
Yes.  I do appreciate that.  But, this means very little to those I was on about in my previous post.  And people who in their social circumstances etc would very much benefit from it.  It just isn't a part of our everyday lives.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

JHE said:


> Have you also observed that among very many people - and, crucially, especially among the young - the idea of a socialist society is not so much rejected as simply absent? Ideas that for generations animated a significant political minority are largely just not there any more.


Yes, I think there is a lot of truth to that. I didn't say that these people I know have now become socialists, but yes, mainstream political debate now does not include socialism as part of its agenda, and that's bound to have an impact on how people think.

I admit that I don't know too many young people! But I'd have thought that at the very least there will be head-scratching going on about what is wrong with the current situation. I'd hope so.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 15, 2012)

JHE said:


> Have you also observed that among very many people - and, crucially, especially among the young - the idea of a socialist society is not so much rejected as simply absent? Ideas that for generations animated a significant political minority are largely just not there any more.


This is true. As is the criticism of the current system. There is an "ideas vacuum"


----------



## dennisr (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The U75 paradox: If you want to avoid a bunfight, start a thread about bunfights.


 
splitter


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Yes. I do appreciate that. But, this means very little to those I was on about in my previous post. And people who in their social circumstances etc would very much benefit from it. It just isn't a part of our everyday lives.


 
perhaps, but i wasn't addressing or restricting my initial post specifically to those you were on about in your previous post

it was a simple observation that marx is more popular now among a variety of differing groups than he was 5-10 years ago


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 15, 2012)

JHE said:


> Have you also observed that among very many people - and, crucially, especially among the young - the idea of a socialist society is not so much rejected as simply absent? Ideas that for generations animated a significant political minority are largely just not there any more.


Yeah of course, why would they know anything other than right wing ideas? It's more or less taught at school for a start off.
I mean I don't remember primary schools in the seventies urging us to "achieve economic wellbeing".


----------



## JHE (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> your conflating a study of capitalism with socialism - everyone here is talking about the former, only you are talking about the later


 

1. For Marx one lead to the other.

2. Personally, I never come across anyone discussing the labour theory of value, let alone claiming that underlying the ecomonic difficulties is the rising organic composition of capital leading to a decline in the rate of profit, but I guess I just don't move in the right circles.

3.  The point I was responding to was Jesus' suggestion that the idea that capitalism, though not perfect, is the best available system is 'no longer tenable'. It will be tenable for as long as there is no credible alternative and the situation at the moment is that fewer and fewer people believe there is an alternative.  The very idea of socialism is evaporating.


----------



## JimW (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> perhaps, but i wasn't addressing or restricting my initial post specifically to those you were on about in your previous post
> 
> it was a simple observation that marx is more popular now among a variety of differing groups than he was 5-10 years ago


I remember the sort of puzzld BBC reports on a manga version of Capital hitting the Japanese bestseller lists a few years back, and similar articles periodically attempting to address the revived interest, usually written by journos with no clue about the man or his work.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Yeah of course, why would they know anything other than right wing ideas? It's more or less taught at school for a start off.
> I mean I don't remember primary schools in the seventies urging us to "achieve economic wellbeing".


It's a process that is taking us further towards the US in this regard, imo, where the capitalist system is naturalised in people's minds to the extent that it doesn't even occur to them that there is a system there to be questioned.

Again, anecdotal, but I lived in the US for a couple of years back in the early 90s, and that was my overwhelming impression of most people I met - they didn't understand that things could be different from how they were, that things are different from how they are in the US in other parts of the world.

Hopefully that process is now being reversed, both here and in the US. IMO if the worldwide system of capitalism is to be challenged, among other things that challenge has to come in the US, from the US people.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a process that is taking us further towards the US in this regard, imo, where the capitalist system is naturalised in people's minds to the extent that it doesn't even occur to them that there is a system there to be questioned.
> 
> .


The idea that the system we have is "just common sense" and even "natural" is one of the weirder things I've seen.
No system made by people is natural, it's got to be man-made, whether that's good or bad.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> The idea that the system we have is "just common sense" and even "natural" is one of the weirder things I've seen.
> No system made by people is natural, it's got to be man-made, whether that's good or bad.


In the US at least, there is a conflation of 'capitalism' with 'freedom' in people's minds. Freedom of money is confused with freedom of people, imo.


----------



## chilango (Mar 15, 2012)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is a resurgence of interest in Marxism or Socialism.

But in some situations Marx, as a critic, has re-gained some credibility. People are willing to consider Marx's ideas as having a degree of validity without automatic dismissal due to political legacy.  

Organised Marxism and socialism as a "force" is, for the most part, not even though about. Neither accepted, nor dismissed, merely absent.

To be honest, I'm rambling. I said it better above!



> Marx has been somewhat liberated from "Marxism" in polite conversation. You can bring Marx up in discussion without people picturing a student selling Trotskyist newspapers on the High Street (something that is becoming a scene from days gone by now). That is a good thing. the danger is of course of a certain "depoliticisation" of Marx, and his recuperation. We shall see.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 15, 2012)

JHE said:


> Have you also observed that among very many people - and, crucially, especially among the young - the idea of a socialist society is not so much rejected as simply absent? Ideas that for generations animated a significant political minority are largely just not there any more.


 
Not so long ago I was asked by a friend what the terms left-wing and right-wing meant. This was someone in their mid-twenties, btw. So yeah, a lot of people are so completely de-politicised that even entering into a conversation about capitalism is difficult. If you don't even know what capitalism is, then how can you begin to think of alternatives?

There is always a narrative that can be formed to bring people in though. I guess it's just about starting from where people currently are and not bothering with the intricacies of theory straight away.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 15, 2012)

Has there ever been a bunfight about cats?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

someone in that position will have almost certainly have had to deal with a cunt of a boss and shit money etc. start from there and you'll probably realise they know more than they (or you) think.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 15, 2012)

sim667 said:


> Has there ever been a bunfight about cats?


there must have been major cats vs. dogs threads?


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

JHE said:


> 1. For Marx one lead to the other.


 
this is a common misconception - out of the 2,500 odd pages of Capital, no more than a handful are about what type of society may take the place of capitalism (the clue to this being the case is in the title). And these are a mixture of idealism, political preference and a reflection of the time where the world was seeing an increase in both productivity and resources which would make such a society possible. The topic of Marx's 'scientific' study was capitalism, this exists separate from and independent to his scant, hazy & disparate ideas on what may replace it one day. The interest in Marx from supporters of capitalism is not because they want to work out how to get to socialism, it's because they (or the more prescient of them) can see the value of the study of capitalism in and off itself

this misconception also puts forward the view that marx thought the working class were just passive objects, waiting for some pre-ordained collapse that would automatically usher in some glorious new dawn - which again is far from the truth



> 2. Personally, I never come across anyone discussing the labour theory of value, let alone claiming that underlying the ecomonic difficulties is the rising organic composition of capital leading to a decline in the rate of profit, but I guess I just don't move in the right circles.


 
Neither have I (other than online or in books) but this doesn't mean that there isn't an increased interest in Marx and his work over the last 5 years as a response to what is going on around us



> 3. The point I was responding to was Jesus' suggestion that the idea that capitalism, though not perfect, is the best available system is 'no longer tenable'. It will be tenable for as long as there is no credible alternative and the situation at the moment is that fewer and fewer people believe there is an alternative. The very idea of socialism is evaporating.


 
I agree with this - but as already stated this is a different thing to what was being discussed above


----------



## articul8 (Mar 15, 2012)

JHE said:


> 3. The point I was responding to was Jesus' suggestion that the idea that capitalism, though not perfect, is the best available system is 'no longer tenable'. It will be tenable for as long as there is no credible alternative and the situation at the moment is that fewer and fewer people believe there is an alternative. The very idea of socialism is evaporating.


 
I know Jesus is the Son of God and hence can predict stuff, but did he really see the onset of capitalism a full millennium and a half early?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

Sometimes I really wish I hadn't chosen my username on the back of a private joke.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

he got it wrong though, he thought it would start in the towns


----------



## bamalama (Mar 15, 2012)

I've been readin the politics forums here for about 18 months.Sometimes it's a bit snippy between people,but i've never found it intimidating.I find some of it funny as fuck...


----------



## articul8 (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> he got it wrong though, he thought it would start in the towns


 
Some of the left look forward to the collapse of capitalism like millenarian cults looking forward to the second coming in their lifetimes.   The fact that capitalism endures crises doesn't mean a final crisis is inevitable.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> perhaps, but i wasn't addressing or restricting my initial post specifically to those you were on about in your previous post
> 
> it was a simple observation that marx is more popular now among a variety of differing groups than he was 5-10 years ago


 
Of course. And it was a simple observation that, with the people I was on about, they don't give a fuck.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Some of the left look forward to the collapse of capitalism like millenarian cults looking forward to the second coming in their lifetimes. The fact that capitalism endures crises doesn't mean a final crisis is inevitable.


Capitalism doesn't just 'endure' crises though, I would say. Each crisis itself _changes_ capitalism.

And I endorse ld's earlier point about _people_ being the agents of change. It's a point often made by butchersapron too, and I think it's important to remember it. It can be lost in political discussion. If capitalism is to disappear - or even just to be adapted so that it is more just - that can only happen through people making it happen, demanding that it should happen.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 15, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I guess there are probably a fair few posters here (not just newbies) who would like to post in the politics and theory forums, but are too scared to.


 
My experience is the opposite. I've learned loads on the theory forum. Some of the book recommends, links and ideas on there are miles better than I've found anywhere else tbh.


----------



## JimW (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Capitalism doesn't just 'endure' crises though, I would say. Each crisis itself _changes_ capitalism.
> 
> And I endorse ld's earlier point about _people_ being the agents of change. It's a point often made by butchersapron too, and I think it's important to remember it. It can be lost in political discussion. If capitalism is to disappear - or even just to be adapted so that it is more just - that can only happen through people making it happen, demanding that it should happen.


Yep, the way I was always led to understand it was that capitalism is going to throw up the crises that present an opportunity for radical change but it's up to us what we do with them.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> My experience is the opposite. I've learned loads on the theory forum. Some of the book recommends, links and ideas on there are miles better than I've found anywhere else tbh.


 
That's my experience too, I was on about those who do read with interest etc, and want to contribute, but feel intimidated by other posters.  That's a shame to be honest.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 15, 2012)

articul8 said:


> there must have been major cats vs. dogs threads?



The great urban civil war of 2009, many were lost


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

JimW said:


> Maybe I read to many US-dominated forums, but there's an annoying trend I presume is influenced by the right libertarians to claim that the problems of the current crisis etc. are because it's not 'pure' capitalism, which seems like a slip back from the general understanding that the state worked in capital's interests I recall when younger.


 
And when/if "pure capitalism" fails, the libertarian right will find some other excuse, be it the sabotaging of capitalism by vicious freedom-hating socialists, or the sabotaging of capitalism by weather acting in a manner contrary to predicted patterns and ruing crops etc.

Right libertarians - people with the freedom to take off their blinkers, but who don't want to.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Some of the left look forward to the collapse of capitalism like millenarian cults looking forward to the second coming in their lifetimes. The fact that capitalism endures crises doesn't mean a final crisis is inevitable.


 
i don't think you got my joke


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

JimW said:


> Maybe I read to many US-dominated forums, but there's an annoying trend I presume is influenced by the right libertarians to claim that the problems of the current crisis etc. are because it's not 'pure' capitalism, which seems like a slip back from the general understanding that the state worked in capital's interests I recall when younger.


That's the 'Chicago school' take, I believe - the rather mad idea that this crisis proves that Hayek was right. 

It is odd posting on US forums. In my brief foray, I found myself having to go right back to first principles to talk about what 'freedom' is.

I didn't make much progress, tbh, except perhaps wrt the NHS. I think at least one or two US posters understood the idea that not having to worry about health insurance adds to one's personal freedom.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In the US at least, there is a conflation of 'capitalism' with 'freedom' in people's minds. Freedom of money is confused with freedom of people, imo.


 
Well, that trope seems to have been part of the political discourse in the states for a fair while longer than this side of the pond, so it isn't so surprising, when seen alongside the suppression of the left (in which I *don't* include the Democratic party) during most of the 20th century in the States.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 15, 2012)

I am sorry for my behaviour. I got in too deep before I realised what was happening.
Tbf my pied piper allusion showed I wasn't at my best.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

right, 50 press ups


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> someone in that position will have almost certainly have had to deal with a cunt of a boss and shit money etc. start from there and you'll probably realise they know more than they (or you) think.


 
Yep, my friends and family.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

so have they read volume 2 of capital or what then?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

Not that I am aware of.  Never cropped up in conversation. Does it matter?


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

loosen up ffs - it was a joke, a self depreciating one at that


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

(((ld's jokes)))

Barney Pig _actually did_ those press-ups too.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

don't know what it is about this place, not one person has laughed at one of them


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

Your joke was shit and my question was serious though.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

serious business then


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

It is for you, evidently.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

yes, that's why i'm making jokes about myself and you're asking serious questions in a serious po faced manner


----------



## JimW (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> so have they read volume 2 of capital or what then?


My landlords are examples of new the truly filthy parasite class that has emerged in China (living idle off the proceeds of corruptly obtained formerly collective assets). First time they came round to pick up the rent and have a nose the old feller asked me what the fat book on the table was, told him is was Capital (Vol 1, I'm afraid) and he said 'does anyone still believe all that?' I of course 'patiently explained' the future role of the broad masses of peasants and workers in struggling him to his senses.
ETA I get your jokes, ld, but would seem sycophantic to 'like' them all'


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 15, 2012)

Still got 20 press ups to do


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

My question wasn't posed in a po-faced manner.  ViolentPanda aside, does it matter that my friends and family haven't read it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> Still got 20 press ups to do


No more posting till they're done.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

your friends and family can do whatever they want Ryazan

do you honestly think that i think it's important that your friends and family read it?

you seem to have got the hump by my simple mention of the observation that Marx is more popular now than he was 5-10 years ago

edit: is it important that i read obscure details of cambodian history? probably not, but if that's what one enjoys doing and occasionally writing about it then what's the problem with that?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 15, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> Still got 20 press ups to do


That last one didn't count, I saw your knees bend


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 15, 2012)

Crispy said:


> That last one didn't count, I saw your knees bend


 
He's not straightening his arms enough either.

START AGAIN!


----------



## petee (Mar 15, 2012)

i have no use for trotism but ...


chilango said:


> 2/ On the rare occasion when I find a "trot" (or whatever) at my workplace etc. it's just such a pleasure to have someone to chat to about "Political stuff" that bickering doesn't even cross our minds.


one day i walked in on a colleague to find him reading socialist worker on his computer. it contributed in a small but significant way to not blowing my stack and fucking off out of this reactioary hole i work in.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> your friends and family can do whatever they want Ryazan
> 
> do you honestly think that i think it's important that your friends and family read it?
> 
> you seem to have got the hump by my simple mention of the observation that Marx is more popular now than he was 5-10 years ago


 
I haven't got the hump oisleep. Going beyond, Marx is pretty meaningingless to most people. That's important (for whatever reason/s), no?


----------



## steeplejack (Mar 15, 2012)

all very 2007-8 on here


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

not sure i understand your question, but if you mean going beyond marx's work is important then yes - but to go beyond something usually requirs going through something in the first place (to at least make use of what has went before us) - i don't think any great discovery in any field has come up by something being completely new, it's always in some response to what has went before it, whether positively or negatively, so i don't see why this is any different


----------



## steeplejack (Mar 15, 2012)

to answer the OP, the topics are broadly the same (less SWP and more BNP topics these days than in my urban days) but there is *much less* factionalism between far left and anarchist posters than there was c. 2005.

I seem to remember a Kronstadt thread that went on for about 300 pages from around that time, it's probably archived somewhere.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> not sure i understand your question, but if you mean going beyond marx's work is important then yes - but to go beyond something usually requirs going through something in the first place (to at least make use of what has went before us) - i don't think any great discovery in any field has come up by something being completely new, it's always in some response to what has went before it, whether positively or negatively, so i don't see why this is any different


 
I didn't understand that, sorry.

It appears you have put in a lot of effort into learning what he was about, what he thought, what he contributed. I am not slagging that. Is your own enthusiaism colouring how it is seen on the giving-a-fuck-o-meter to most people? That's _with_ taking into account the renewned and increased interest over the last few years you talked about earlier. You've expressed resentment towards those academics who have only used Marxism to shore up privileged positions for themselves with no application outside of their own little self-congratulatory bubbles of studying something for the sake of it. Presumably what you have gained through your own study is to at least in some ways help inform whatever political involvement you have now and in the future? Your 'no more castles in the sand' you talked about. Your community involvement ... That's more important than writing long-winded posting catching someone out, wasting time on the theory forum of an obscure site on the internet? Does it really matter if some fucker hasn't read volume 2 of wotchamacallit? I think it's you who got the hump on that score.

edit:　I can no longer write about Stalinism in Asia, because of getting warned over distributing copyright-protected literature.  It was fairly popular fwiw given the niche subject matter, even a  pointy head who knows her Marx appeared and added to some discussion on the work of hers I was using without her permisson, but in the end was happy for me to share.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> My question wasn't posed in a po-faced manner. ViolentPanda aside, does it matter that my friends and family haven't read it?


 
not at all. i've not read most of it either. loads of people (actually most people) haven't.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> not sure i understand your question


 
have re-read it and looks like i did misunderstand your question - what you meant was it's important (or instructive) that Marx is meaningless for most people, yes?

I don't think it matters either way really - I think most people instinctively/intuitively know that the work they perform results in profits that do not go back to those who perform that work (and that's because of an unnatural distribution of wealth that is constantly perpetuated by this situation) - i think knowing/realising that is the most important thing of all - and if that instinctive/intuitive hunch is backed up by some pointy headed analysis & research then so be it


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 15, 2012)

one thing that is bizarre on here and perhaps unique , is that people tend to have a go more at people with almost the same beliefs than they do the REAL enemy which is sad


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> not at all. i've not read most of it either. loads of people (actually most people) haven't.


Most people are not aware that there are three volumes, let alone have read volume 2. Of those interested in Marx, I'm sure the majority are like me - and started vol1 only to give up rather shamefully quickly. I'm sure there are loads of people out there who've read a bit of it and say they've read all of it, too.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

i've read some short essays by marx (mostly linked to on here) and the communist manifesto, and that's about it. capital terrifies me tbh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

Exactly the same as me, except that I've also read the first 60 or so pages of Capital. Twice.


----------



## krink (Mar 15, 2012)

trevhagl said:


> one thing that is bizarre on here and perhaps unique , is that people tend to have a go more at people with almost the same beliefs than they do the REAL enemy which is sad


 
yeah but Oi! is shit and d-beat is great.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Exactly the same as me, except that I've also read the first 60 or so pages of Capital. Twice.


 
the start is the worst to be honest, it did my tits in until I learned to stop worrying about totally getting it and then move on. Didn't help that I have a chronic fear of formulas and even when they aren't at all complicated, it's kike my brain just takes a shit fit when it sees something laid out in that manner. The Harvey lectures really helped me too.


----------



## Edie (Mar 15, 2012)

bamalama said:


> I've been readin the politics forums here for about 18 months.Sometimes it's a bit snippy between people,but i've never found it intimidating.I find some of it funny as fuck...


Hello!


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Is your own enthusiaism colouring how it is seen on the giving-a-fuck-o-meter to most people?


 
once again, i merely mentioned that Marx is more popular now than he has been for some considerable time. you seem to keep on implying that this means that i think everyone gives a fuck about him (and bear in mind the only reason i mentioned this in the first place was to contrast it with the perceived decreasing importance of it on urban)



> You've expressed resentment towards those academics who have only used Marxism to shore up privileged positions for themselves with no application outside of their own little self-congratulatory bubbles of studying something for the sake of it.


 
Indeed i have and continue to do so - mostly because these people earn a living out of it and with that comes all the carving out and mystifying and professionalisation of it to protect that position (both financially and culturally/socially/academically). my reason for taking an interest in the topic is partly because i think it's an important insight and it relates to an area i'm interested in, so partly as a hobby (like you with 'obscure' cambodian & russian history that probably features just as low on the giving-a-fuck-o-meter with most people as Marx does). And partly purely to see if I was actually able to do it - like yourself not having been to university or moving in circles where 'intelectual' debate/discussion takes place, you get little chance to see if you can actually function on levels that you see other people doing so, so rather than just accept that that kind of thing isn't for 'the likes of us', you try it and see, and after doing so you realise it's not as complex as it's made out to be, and that's pretty satisfying (regardless of the topic) and that in itself I think is politically important, as it shows that things like this (in any areas) don't have to be left to the privileged to ponder/pontificate about - and sometimes, you even use what you've learned to discuss things on message board when the topic comes up - i know, crazy.




> Presumably what you have gained through your own study is to at least in some ways help inform whatever political involvement you have now and in the future? Your 'no more castles in the sand' you talked about. Your community involvement ... That's more important.....


 
As i said in the post above, basic instinct/intuition combined with real life experience inform & motivate far more than what you could ever read in a book, so that is always the motivating thing - although it's nice to have that instinct validated by something else



> ..than writing long-winded posting catching someone out, wasting time on the theory forum of an obscure site on the internet? Does it really matter if some fucker hasn't read volume 2 of wotchamacallit? I think it's you who got the hump on that score.


 
let's face it, if someone was banging on about cambodian or russian history and you saw that they were wrong or bullshitting about something you would (and have) call them up on it on here - even though it doesn't really matter nor that it's a waste of time. you have some knowledge about it and you contribute it into a discussion which helps give a better portrayal of what's been discussed. why is that any different to what I do? As for the volume 2 stuff, of course it's not important - what i thought was worthwhile however was to pull up someone who had bullshited/lied/misled people on here about what they had done - it could have been any book it related to, that's not important - if someone goes about on here acting like a pompous know it all, then they deserve to get pulled when they slip up and deceive (and yes, myself included)


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> edit:　I can no longer write about Stalinism in Asia, because of getting warned over distributing copyright-protected literature. It was fairly popular fwiw given the niche subject matter, even a pointy head who knows her Marx appeared and added to some discussion on the work of hers I was using without her permisson, but in the end was happy for me to share.


 
that's not really relevant to me or my family though

(joke, again)


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> the start is the worst to be honest, it did my tits in until I learned to stop worrying about totally getting it and then move on. Didn't help that I have a chronic fear of formulas and even when they aren't at all complicated, it's kike my brain just takes a shit fit when it sees something laid out in that manner. The Harvey lectures really helped me too.


 
Me too, I found the Harvey book on Capital very useful too.

The first few chapter are defo the hardest - but if you stick with it, think it through properly, then it becomes both understandable and also satisfying that you've stuck with it and learnt something. Finally, reading Capital alerts you to a wealth of other political, economic and philosophical texts.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Didn't help that I have a chronic fear of formulas and even when they aren't at all complicated, it's kike my brain just takes a shit fit when it sees something laid out in that manner.


 
you're going to have a heart attack when you hit the section on the reproduction schema in chapter 20/21 (the biggest issue i think is that it's both poorly laid out/presented and poorly described - the actual thing that it's trying to describe is not as difficult as it looks but it's just awfully done - guess that's the problem with publishing something made up of a dead man's notes)


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> that's not really relevant to me or my family though
> 
> (joke, again)


 
True, nor mine, but I think Marx would be relevant.  The problem with pointy heads is, that even a self-taught pointy head can still be damaging to the roles/participation of others in whatever politics emerges and that they are a part of.  That was kind of wrapped up in what I was typing above. 

It is nearly 1:15 am here (Fukuyama), I'm on holiday, had too much wine.  Off to bed.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> True, nor mine, but I think Marx would be relevant. The problem with pointy heads is, that even a self-taught pointy head can still be damaging to the roles/participation of others in whatever politics emerges and that they are a part of. That was kind of wrapped up in what I was typing above.


 
yeah i agree - and something i've been thinking about over the last few months

Even though i detest those who I see who carving out a profession for themselves within academia (or socially/economically in other ways) with this kind of thing and can pretty much only see those roles as negative, I realise that even that detesting involves some kind of embracement/engagement with them (even if it's only negatively), which in turn ends up with me just carving out and inhabiting a slightly bigger bubble than the one i'm moaning about

what's the alternative though, an acceptance that normal people can't cope and shouldn't be involved with this kind of thing, an outlook that says theory is only for theorists and allow it's continued professionalisation, a view that learning & education should only take part within formal educational institutions and a complete rejection of it from those who are otherwise on the outside of it, an acceptance of a characteroured (sp?) tabloid view of working class desires & ability or a recognition that this stuff can and should be just as much ours as it is theirs.



> It is nearly 1:15 am here (Fukuyama), I'm on holiday, had too much wine. Off to bed.


 
at least i'm unemployed and got an excuse for wasting my time on obscure theory forums - i wouldn't waste my holidays on them though!


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> at least i'm unemployed and got an excuse for wasting my time on obscure theory forums - i wouldn't waste my holidays on them though!


Have you been saved from Bradford then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

> a recognition that this stuff can and should be just as much ours as it is theirs.


This, of course. But can I humbly suggest that you, for instance, are well qualified to write a precis of Marx's essential ideas for people who you know are never going to read Capital but might read a short book by you?

Apologies if you've already done that! But it strikes me as a good thing you could do.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Have you been saved from Bradford then?


 
not yet - still on the cards


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This, of course. But can I humbly suggest that you, for instance, are well qualified to write a precis of Marx's essential ideas for people who you know are never going to read Capital but might read a short book by you?
> 
> Apologies if you've already done that! But it strikes me as a good thing you could do.


 
I would be too lazy and undisciplined to even think about doing something like that - i could only do it if it was a series of posts in response to things other people say about it that i disagreed with - if i sat down to try and write anything about it, or even just to think about what i had to say about it, i would get a couple of sentences and gave up, as I have an innate sense that that kind of thing is not for the likes of me (still not past that part of early life educational priming)


----------



## binka (Mar 15, 2012)

so love detective is oisleep. im glad thats been cleared up. im sick of you idiots changing your names all the time


----------



## Crispy (Mar 15, 2012)

What's that series of "introducing" books on philosphy.theory etc? You know the ones with the b&w cartoons/collages, presented as a conversation between author and typical reader?

The Marx one of those is pretty good IIRC.


----------



## JimW (Mar 15, 2012)

"For Beginners" series?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 15, 2012)

That's the one. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marx-Beginners-Rius/dp/0375714618


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> I would be too lazy and undisciplined to even think about doing something like that - i could only do it if it was a series of posts in response to things other people say about it that i disagreed with - if i sat down to try and write anything about it, or even just to think about what i had to say about it, i would get a couple of sentences and gave up, as I have an innate sense that that kind of thing is not for the likes of me (still not past that part of early life educational priming)


Your posts on here show me that you're perfectly capable of it, but yes, I understand the power of that priming.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

love detective said:


> yeah i agree - and something i've been thinking about over the last few months
> 
> Even though i detest those who I see who carving out a profession for themselves within academia (or socially/economically in other ways) with this kind of thing and can pretty much only see those roles as negative, I realise that even that detesting involves some kind of embracement/engagement with them (even if it's only negatively), which in turn ends up with me just carving out and inhabiting a slightly bigger bubble than the one i'm moaning about
> 
> ...


Personally, I value your economic explanations a great deal. What I would value most is some good plain English stuff from you and other well-informed Marxists. Stuff that doesn't use jargon, and does place things in a concrete context.

ie the stuff that the Marxist economists aren't doing. The stuff that people need experts to do if their expertise is ever to be of any use to wider society.

The kind of stuff Krugman does with his blog - straightforward explanations of key concepts, well referenced and linked to more detailed/technical articles for people who want to read more.

People won't get into this stuff if they have to wade through capital and learn a lot of new language to understand it. They will get into this stuff if they realise it makes sense.

I also think Marxist politics needs to come up with a proposal that does not lead to primitivism, bureaucratic authoritarianism or is reliant on utopia emerging. But maybe that exists and I missed it because I am not understanding the jargon.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 15, 2012)

I have also read the first 50 pages of capital and then given up.  

Maybe we could try a U75 Capital reading group? (Hide it in the Theory/Philosophy forum to minimise derailing?).


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

Maybe we can forget the idea that everyone needs to become an expert on Marxism before it is worth their while thinking about politics? That way, niches lie - it's the non-academic mirror image of what academic Marxists do.

Self-defeating approach for a revolutionary, IMO. Make it accessible and get it out there. Fuck the reading groups.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 15, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I have also read the first 50 pages of capital and then given up.
> 
> Maybe we could try a U75 Capital reading group? (Hide it in the Theory/Philosophy forum to minimise derailing?).


 
I'd be up for that - having recently completed Capital I think a chapter by chapter discussion etc would be invaulable for those who want to put the effort in to reading it and think it through.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

To clarify, I'm not against reading groups for those who want to study Marx. I just don't think it'll get you very far in disseminating these ideas more widely. If you want every potential revolutionary to study Marx in an academic way, you'll never have enough revolutionaries to do anything - unless you're a vanguardist who thinks the masses are too stupid to be consulted.

My specialism is medical statistics. I have to communicate relatively complex statistical ideas in ways that medics can understand so that they can use them in their everyday practice. They don't need to train to become statisticians to do this - they just need statisticians who aren't too busy pretending that it's all very complicated (protecting their patch in much the same way ld describes academic Marxists doing).

In my experience, impenetrable jargon is used for one of two reasons: covering up for an imperfect understanding of the subject (the speaker doesn't yet understand the arguments well enough to put them into their own words); or making a pathetically trivial point sound important.

Would like to see more Marxists who fall into neither of these traps.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

I agree completley that some of the language used about marxism can be really intimidating initially to someone who doesn't understand it, but i also think the same can also go for things to do with trade unions and some of the language and procedures at meetings etc which can (or did to me at least) seem baffling and incomprehensible. Not because people are stupid or incapable but because a lot of the traditions etc have been lost, especially for people under the age of 35


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 15, 2012)

Thanks ymu. I've been doing political bits and bobs for over two decades now, so not reading Marx hasn't held me back. 

But I would like to understand some things better. I agree with you about jargon, but I think there's a risk of ending up in the Trev Hagl school of "has it got big words in it? Lol" anti-intellectualism.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

I also agree with the points that have been made about this stuff being used to shut people out as opposed to include people in it and educate people about marxism which is after all something that too many of the people who would benefit from it the most are the most excluded from it. 

and so much is about social conditioning as well or people thinking they're not "brainy" enough to get involved in anything like that whereas in fact you don't need to be a genius or to have loads of books


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Thanks ymu. I've been doing political bits and bobs for over two decades now, so not reading Marx hasn't held me back.
> 
> But I would like to understand some things better. I agree with you about jargon, but I think there's a risk of ending up in the Trev Hagl school of "has it got big words in it? Lol" anti-intellectualism.


 
Yes, I think that's a big risk and you can end up being patronising if you go off in the other direction. People understand A LOT more than a lot of lefties think!


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Thanks ymu. I've been doing political bits and bobs for over two decades now, so not reading Marx hasn't held me back.
> 
> But I would like to understand some things better. I agree with you about jargon, but I think there's a risk of ending up in the Trev Hagl school of "has it got big words in it? Lol" anti-intellectualism.


Definitely. It's a balance, innit.

What I mean is that it's fairly easy to explain some things in concrete terms that everyone can understand. That's a much better approach than sending them off to read an impenetrable book, but I don't see many Marxists other than Harvey trying to do this.

I would love ld to start up a Krugmanesque blog which dealt with stuff piecemeal - responding to events and putting them into context rather than trying to produce some learned tome or comprehensive primer. People will investigate stuff that interests them. Marxism has masses to say about this crisis so there is no better time to get some plain English explanations out there, stuff which links to more depthy material for those who want to learn more.

People have different strengths and interests, and I think too much of the organised left is dominated by intellectual types who just can't be arsed with anyone who has a different obsession (and who often are not sure enough of their own ground to invite anyone else onto it, if it's anything like the rest of academia).


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I just don't think it'll get you very far in disseminating these ideas more widely. If you want every potential revolutionary to study Marx in an academic way, you'll never have enough revolutionaries to do anything - unless you're a vanguardist who thinks the masses are too stupid to be consulted.


 
well as one of them so called vanguardists i've certainly never thought that and have repeatedly argued against it in fact 

not having a go at you btw! just a general point


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

I'm not calling anyone a vanguardist. I just think that vanguardism is where an obsession with intellectual ego-stroking inevitably winds up.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

i know you weren't having a go, i'm just saying.


----------



## raknor (Mar 15, 2012)

In regard to some of the earlier posts, I have been reading the politics threads for years and have been feeling more & more guilty about never posting due to a combination of cowardice, being lazy, always seeming to come in late to threads and after writing all day at work, its probably the last thing I want to do the few minutes a day I can get on here! I've have thoroughly enjoyed lots of the debates on theory & especially the anti fascist threads, some very useful information on those, as its a particular area of interest for me. 

My own background is w/c and spent 10 years in the SWP from the late eighties to the late nineties, but it was involvement in anti fascism that exposed me to other strands of the left & anarchism, although despite not being in any organisation for a while, it would appear that I have never fully shed my trot thinking, so that's why probably left it alone when it comes to posting.


----------



## past caring (Mar 15, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I have also read the first 50 pages of capital and then given up.
> 
> Maybe we could try a U75 Capital reading group? (Hide it in the Theory/Philosophy forum to minimise derailing?).


 
I have just started with a Capital vol 1 reading group - 25 in the first meeting and we didn't get past the first 3 paragraphs! going to keep at it, though - a bit odd feeling I've spent all this time as a communist and never even really tried to get to grips with it.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 15, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> My question wasn't posed in a po-faced manner. ViolentPanda aside, does it matter that my friends and family haven't read it?


 
Wasn't aware that VP was a friend or relative of yours.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 15, 2012)

steeplejack said:


> to answer the OP, the topics are broadly the same (less SWP and more BNP topics these days than in my urban days) but there is *much less* factionalism between far left and anarchist posters than there was c. 2005.
> 
> *I seem to remember a Kronstadt thread* that went on for about 300 pages from around that time, it's probably archived somewhere.


 
Still can't get that early Girls Aloud B side Kronstadt out of my mind:


In the Russian snow the sailors said to Lenin go
But Trotsky was not afraid
A revolution he had made
So if you are down and you feel sad
You won't feel as down or bad
As the anarchists did at Kronstadt "

The anarchists are on the ice
Shot by Lenin which wasn't nice
In the freezing Russian cold
There is a story which must be told
About Kronstadt

It must be said
There were some dead
And that isn't very pleasant
But Russia's better Red
Than run by Whites and peasants


----------



## bamalama (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:
			
		

> Hello!


hello yourself


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> the start is the worst to be honest, it did my tits in until I learned to stop worrying about totally getting it and then move on. Didn't help that I have a chronic fear of formulas and even when they aren't at all complicated, it's *kike* my brain just takes a shit fit when it sees something laid out in that manner. The Harvey lectures really helped me too.


 
Anti-Semite Freudian slip!!!


----------



## JimW (Mar 15, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Still can't get that early Girls Aloud B side Kronstadt out of my mind


 
Not a patch on the classic live album, Linda Ronstadt Sings The Kronstadt (guest David Cassidy, fresh from shooting the Partridge Family).


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

raknor said:


> In regard to some of the earlier posts, I have been reading the politics threads for years and have been feeling more & more guilty about never posting due to a combination of cowardice, being lazy, always seeming to come in late to threads and after writing all day at work, its probably the last thing I want to do the few minutes a day I can get on here! I've have thoroughly enjoyed lots of the debates on theory & especially the anti fascist threads, some very useful information on those, as its a particular area of interest for me.
> 
> My own background is w/c and spent 10 years in the SWP from the late eighties to the late nineties, but it was involvement in anti fascism that exposed me to other strands of the left & anarchism, although despite not being in any organisation for a while, it would appear that I have never fully shed my trot thinking, so that's why probably left it alone when it comes to posting.


 
but there's nothing necessarily wrong with the "trot thinking"  i try not to go on about this a lot but i do get a bit annoyed sometimes when people assume (not necessarily on here) that "trots" are all middle class and never do any community work on local issues and just want shove papers down people's throats, and never want to do any good work in the area which wouldn't achieve immediate results, and just want to jump on a bandwagon which is "popular" (our work in the anti HS2 campaign is definitely not making us "popular" among many people who i reckon some on here imagine the trots' target demographic is). oh and think that everyone is stupid and has to be led (and that was what i was getting at with my earlier comment). some people do think that but there are loads of twats like that on the left who think they and only they are right and everyone else is wrong and shock horror the majority of them are probably not trots.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

and dont feel intimidated when it comes to posting. never stop asking those questions either.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 15, 2012)

chilango said:


> I've noticed on a couple of threads a) age old arguments between "trots" and "anarchists" or "tankies" vs "the rest" and b) a few people getting fed up of this and bemoaning the growth of factionalism in the threads.
> 
> Personally, I think a few points are worth raising:
> 
> 1/ Urban doesn't really mirror the real world. I don't know anyone in my day to day life who would have a clue or give a shit about these arguments. So there's no oppurtunity.


It's baldies fighting over a comb.


----------



## past caring (Mar 15, 2012)

Can't you just stick to making a cunt of yourself on the 6 nations thread?


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

past caring said:


> Can't you just stick to making a cunt of yourself on the 6 nations thread?


 
or the threads where he defends racist cunts...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 15, 2012)

past caring said:


> Can't you just stick to making a cunt of yourself on the 6 nations thread?


I'm a cunt on that thread as well?. Get a grip


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> or the threads where he defends racist cunts...


Have you quietened down since you were banned?....


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 15, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm a cunt on that thread as well?. Get a grip


 
In fairness there's 8 superfluous words in that post.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

beginning to look like your cuntishness is not contingent but essential.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Have you quietened down since you were banned?....


 
I haven't been banned in a long time, what are you on about?


----------



## past caring (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> I haven't been banned in a long time, what are you on about?


 
Living in the past, as per.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 15, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> In fairness there's 8 superfluous words in that post.


Surprised you can count that high. I've no desire to derail this thread by meaningless arguing with trots - they do it too well, so I'll leave it


----------



## raknor (Mar 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> but there's nothing necessarily wrong with the "trot thinking"  i try not to go on about this a lot but i do get a bit annoyed sometimes when people assume (not necessarily on here) that "trots" are all middle class and never do any community work on local issues and just want shove papers down people's throats, and never want to do any good work in the area which wouldn't achieve immediate results, and just want to jump on a bandwagon which is "popular" (our work in the anti HS2 campaign is definitely not making us "popular" among many people who i reckon some on here imagine the trots' target demographic is). oh and think that everyone is stupid and has to be led (and that was what i was getting at with my earlier comment). some people do think that but there are loads of twats like that on the left who think they and only they are right and everyone else is wrong and shock horror the majority of them are probably not trots.


 
Totally agree as I have seen this first hand from a variety of organisations across a swathe of political persuasion.

The trot thinking thing only came to mind as someone recently made a comment along the lines that they thought I would have "moved on" having left a trot party years ago! I suppose the fact I have been involved over the years with a variety of campaigns, organisations etc and have worked (not always successfully I may add) to avoid being sectarian they were slightly surprised that I hadn't rejected it completely out of hand.


----------



## bamalama (Mar 15, 2012)

some of the discussions on here are really interesting, and there's always some good info on local activities.Some stuff is shite aswell imo, especially the conspiracy stuff. Oh aye,  people get pissed off when disagreeing over politics, and the sheer joy that some on here take in that is often very funny.It's what kept me reading at first if i'm honest.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

raknor said:


> Totally agree as I have seen this first hand from a variety of organisations across a swathe of political persuasion.
> 
> The trot thinking thing only came to mind as someone recently made a comment along the lines that they thought I would have "moved on" having left a trot party years ago! I suppose the fact I have been involved over the years with a variety of campaigns, organisations etc and have worked (not always successfully I may add) to avoid being sectarian they were slightly surprised that I hadn't rejected it completely out of hand.


 
well why would you reject it out of hand, even if you think they now have shit politics etc you hopefully still learned something from it, what worked what didn't etc (even if its not to get involved with that group ever again).


----------



## raknor (Mar 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> well why would you reject it out of hand, even if you think they now have shit politics etc you hopefully still learned something from it, what worked what didn't etc (even if its not to get involved with that group ever again).


 
Yep lessons learned 

Thanks for the encouragement, will try and tip my toe in and brave the waters a little more often


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 15, 2012)

Sometimes it seems like while the leftists of before my time lost the argument while arguing with themselves.

I mean, look what we have- is the wider argument won? Fuck no.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 16, 2012)

steeplejack said:


> to answer the OP, the topics are broadly the same (less SWP and more BNP topics these days than in my urban days) but there is *much less* factionalism between far left and anarchist posters than there was c. 2005.
> 
> I seem to remember a Kronstadt thread that went on for about 300 pages from around that time, it's probably archived somewhere.


Yeah, I think the politics forums are much less factional than they were when I joined. Getting rid of the Middle East forum probably helped as that place was always full of crap.

Good to see that you're still around btw.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 16, 2012)

love detective said:


> what's the alternative though, an acceptance that normal people can't cope and shouldn't be involved with this kind of thing, an outlook that says theory is only for theorists and allow it's continued professionalisation, a view that learning & education should only take part within formal educational institutions and a complete rejection of it from those who are otherwise on the outside of it, an acceptance of a characteroured (sp?) tabloid view of working class desires & ability or a recognition that this stuff can and should be just as much ours as it is theirs.


 
It's not learning this stuff that I am against, or more specifically working class people doing so. It's a recognition of the division between those with knowledge, and those without. And it raises questions of if, when, and how that can become a problem in political action. In the realm of politics, the pointy heads, even the working class autodidacts without even realising it, unless able to engage with self-criticism (not in the strictly Leninist sense), will become the new set of pricks seeking to place saddles on the backs of others.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 16, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Wasn't aware that VP was a friend or relative of yours.


 
No way, he's an annakissed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 16, 2012)

Sayles parents had it right, we are all fellow travellers till after the day at which point we will all try to imprison and/or kill the other.

Seems fair enough to me, I live in a fleaspeck town, I can spear carry and if my faction loses I can run to the forgotten places in this dirty old town and spend my life muttering about splitters. Pretty much what I'll be doing either way


----------



## yield (Mar 16, 2012)

_"That would be_ an _ecumenical_ matter."


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 16, 2012)

bamalama said:


> I've been readin the politics forums here for about 18 months.Sometimes it's a bit snippy between people,but i've never found it intimidating.I find some of it funny as fuck...


You can fuck off.


----------



## Voley (Mar 16, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> You can fuck off.


Liberal.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 16, 2012)

NVP said:


> Liberal.


I know where you live.  I'm going to track you down and kill you.


----------



## Voley (Mar 16, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I know where you live. I'm going to track you down and kill you.


Fuck you. I'm going to kill you and all of Scotland. Twice.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 16, 2012)

Cream goes on first, then jam *on top*.


----------



## Voley (Mar 16, 2012)

It's _cheese on beans_ on toast.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 16, 2012)

Ah.  You're not so bad after all.  We need to stand together against the weirdos.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 16, 2012)

I shall try and get a copy of Capital vol 1 at the weekend and will start a thread about it in "theory" when I get to an incomprehensible bit (i.e. half way down page 1 iirc).

If someone else is champing at the bit to get it going then please don't wait.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 16, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I shall try and get a copy of Capital vol 1 at the weekend and will start a thread about it in "theory" when I get to an incomprehensible bit (i.e. half way down page 1 iirc).
> 
> If someone else is champing at the bit to get it going then please don't wait.


Have you dipped in before?  The first three chapters are the ones that usually put people off.  Some people even suggest you read those at the end, and start at chapter 4.  I'm not one of those.  But if you struggle, maybe have a look at David Harvey's videos, especially for those early chapters.  Or even try reading "Value, Price and Profit" before continuing.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 16, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Have you dipped in before? The first three chapters are the ones that usually put people off. Some people even suggest you read those at the end, and start at chapter 4. I'm not one of those. But if you struggle, maybe have a look at David Harvey's videos, especially for those early chapters. Or even try reading "Value, Price and Profit" before continuing.


 
Thanks - it's exactly these sort of tips that I'm hoping for on here. Mutually supportive learning outside the academy, type of thing.

I got it out of the library ages back and didn't get very far. The book just sat there in the corner, menacingly.


----------



## past caring (Mar 16, 2012)

Where are you living these days chief? There's a group just started (first one was last week) in Hoxton Street - don't think it would be a problem that you'd missed the first one.....


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 16, 2012)

past caring said:


> Where are you living these days chief? There's a group just started (first one was last week) in Hoxton Street - don't think it would be a problem that you'd missed the first one.....


 
Still in Hackney, so possible... let me get the book and then I'll drop you a PM... and thanks!


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 16, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Have you dipped in before?  The first three chapters are the ones that usually put people off.  Some people even suggest you read those at the end, and start at chapter 4.  I'm not one of those.  But if you struggle, maybe have a look at David Harvey's videos, especially for those early chapters.  Or even try reading "Value, Price and Profit" before continuing.



This is very very true. I'd suggest you start at the start but use the Harvey book and video lectures to help get you through. Starting at chapter 4 would mean you've missed some important fundamentals. I'll keep an eye on the theory section for Fozzie Bear posts. I suspect one or two knowledgable posters will also pop over to lend a hand when they can be arsed


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 16, 2012)

past caring said:


> Where are you living these days chief? There's a group just started (first one was last week) in Hoxton Street - don't think it would be a problem that you'd missed the first one.....



Who is organising this group pc?


----------



## past caring (Mar 16, 2012)

A group called "WineandCheese" (yes, I know) who appear to be a few ex-pat Germans associated with the group "Junge Linke gegen Kapital and Nation" - have an English website here and produce an English language journal called "kittens" (which I suspect is simply a translation of the German journal, rather than actually written by the lot living in the UK) also linked to on that website. Had a look at some of it - appears to be in the autonomist Marxist camp, but I've not read too much so far...

First one didn't seem too dogmatic or show any evidence that there's a particular agenda to push, so I'll see how we get on.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a process that is taking us further towards the US in this regard, imo, where the capitalist system is naturalised in people's minds to the extent that it doesn't even occur to them that there is a system there to be questioned.
> 
> Again, anecdotal, but I lived in the US for a couple of years back in the early 90s, and that was my overwhelming impression of most people I met - they didn't understand that things could be different from how they were, that things are different from how they are in the US in other parts of the world.
> 
> Hopefully that process is now being reversed, both here and in the US. IMO if the worldwide system of capitalism is to be challenged, among other things that challenge has to come in the US, from the US people.


 
Just curious but have you any links that point to even an interest in alternative systems in the US?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 16, 2012)

past caring said:


> A group called "WineandCheese" (yes, I know) who appear to be a few ex-pat Germans associated with the group "Junge Linke gegen Kapital and Nation" - have an English website here and produce an English language journal called "kittens" (which I suspect is simply a translation of the German journal, rather than actually written by the lot living in the UK) also linked to on that website. Had a look at some of it - appears to be in the autonomist Marxist camp, but I've not read too much so far...
> 
> First one didn't seem too dogmatic or show any evidence that there's a particular agenda to push, so I'll see how we get on.



Aye, this is always a concern. But the advantage of a reading group, I hope, is that you can talk things through and also discuss your interpretation of the text, your points of emphasis etc.


----------



## love detective (Mar 16, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Starting at chapter 4 would mean you've missed some important fundamentals.


 
yeah - if anyone is struggling with the first three chapters my advice would be to still read them, but don't really put that much effort into trying to fathom out exactly what they are meant to be saying, and don't even care if you think that nothing is going in or you don't have a clue what is going on, even just reading the words and going through them in a perfunctory manner will be of some benefit for what lies ahead (and more worthwhile than not reading them or just giving up as you think it's not worth the effort of trying to get it right first time) - and the benefit of doing this way is that when you get to chapter 4 and beyond, it actually feels really easy from then on in and you start to get a sense that you're getting somewhere (and bizarrely you even start to enjoy it both for what's contained in it and the enjoyable read that it is - it's like a big gothic whodunit novel in a way, which will probably surprise you after the downs of chapters 1-3) . And as things move on, all the things that didn't make sense in chapters 1-3 start to be unpicked and investigated and unfolded/unpacked so that what you pick up during that process allows you to make sense of the seemingly garbled nonsense that went before it

Once you've completed the thing you can always go back and read the first three chapters again which will mean a lot more then than at the beginning - also might be encouraging to know that the first three chapters were not just intended to be the 'introduction' (this is probably the wrong word) to volume 1, but pretty much the 'introduction' to both all of Capital and indeed the wider, uncompleted project that Marx originally intended to do - so when you look at it in that light it might not seem as bad if you don't feel you have much grasp of it at the early stage


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Just curious but have you any links that point to even an interest in alternative systems in the US?


 

there is always CrimethInc lol


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Just curious but have you any links that point to even an interest in alternative systems in the US?


Social change doesn't come out of people being won to an alternative system then implementing it - it comes from people reacting to and then shaping the basic social relations that society is organised on. That in turn is driven by what people see as their and their families individual and collective needs and interests - there's no requirement for acceptance of some worked out alternative system for that to happen - no need for formal decleration of revolutionary principles or membership of specific organisations. People _always_ act in that way. The question is whether these needs can be harnessed for the good of the present system (or alternatively kept from expression through various oppressive methods), or whether the present system thwarts the meeting of these needs. When it's the latter things change, challenges appear. Look at the last year for very good examples.


----------



## love detective (Mar 16, 2012)

maybe a good idea for a reading group would be for people to read chapters 1-3 separately and not discuss it at all at that stage and start the group stuff chapter by chapter after that - as the chances of people never getting past chapters 1-3 individually are bad enough, but in a group setting is probably even more harder and even more of a head fuck, which could end up damaging the chances of actually getting through the whole thing


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2012)

An old-school marxist-leninist group are doing a reading group in hydra bookshop in bristol if anyone's interested. I wouldn't advise it myself.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 16, 2012)

love detective said:


> maybe a good idea for a reading group would be for people to read chapters 1-3 separately and not discuss it at all at that stage and start the group stuff chapter by chapter after that - as the chances of people never getting past chapters 1-3 individually are bad enough, but in a group setting is probably even more harder and even more of a head fuck, which could end up damaging the chances of actually getting through the whole thing



Not a bad shout, or as a minimum only discuss basics - use value, exchange value, commodity, concrete labour, abstract labour, exchange, money etc etc. I can only speak for myself but taking the time to get my round the argument at the outset made the subsequent chapters - which are easier - flow.


----------



## past caring (Mar 16, 2012)

Think that's where the group I'm doing is currently going - at least getting some of those key concepts sorted so that you're not having to go back and work out the meaning of those terms later. Or find you think you've understood them and haven't.


----------



## chilango (Mar 16, 2012)

Is this any good?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)

past caring said:


> Where are you living these days chief? There's a group just started (first one was last week) in Hoxton Street - don't think it would be a problem that you'd missed the first one.....


 
You're going to a marxist reading group in Hoxton Street?!?


----------



## past caring (Mar 16, 2012)

I know.

Gets me out of the house though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)

Any fit German birds tried out horizontal recruitment on you yet?


----------



## love detective (Mar 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> It's not learning this stuff that I am against, or more specifically working class people doing so. It's a recognition of the division between those with knowledge, and those without. And it raises questions of if, when, and how that can become a problem in political action. In the realm of politics, the pointy heads, even the working class autodidacts without even realising it, unless able to engage with self-criticism (not in the strictly Leninist sense), will become the new set of pricks seeking to place saddles on the backs of others.


 
yeah can appreciate where you're coming from on this 

i think though that you're maybe essentialising too much what comes with this knowledge you speak off (i.e. the creation of a new set of pricks). Is it actually knowledge itself that is the main driver of the problems you correctly identify - or is it more the material conditions, that often lead to that knowledge being made possible, which act as the real driver for this kind of thing.

What i mean is something like the typical kind of middle class upbringing/life outlook that instills from a very early age an incredible amount of self confidence and a sense of entitlement in dealing with the world around them. This kind of creates a type of person who is in some ways very useful in relation to narrow/targeted political activity due to those attributes,  but also at the same time very damaging to the wider notion that true solutions can only come from a wider self assured & confident working class. 

So is it really knowledge in itself that's the bigger problem here, or is it the conditions through which the majority of people get that knowledge these days? It's obviously not a black and white case and both things play both a part, but I think you maybe overlooking too much the different routes to knowledge that play, imo, significantly different roles in what good or harm that you do with that knowledge (obviously this applies more to the kind of knowledge we're talking about here, and not so much to more vocational professional type knowledge, however i'd say it's still valid to a certain extent)

The other thing that I don't think you've given credit to in your post is perhaps the heightened ability of people who come from outside of this bubble, to be self-critical. I don't know about you but I grew up with a huge suspicion & resentment not only of the educated but education itself. This was a direct product of an education system that thought further education wasn't for the 'likes of us' - my school was essentially a holding pen until we were old enough to be taken on as a YTS (encouraged to do woodwork and metalwork rather than history etc.). So education became something to kick against, to be suspicious off, something that only those posh cunts got to do. As life went on however, over time I was thankfully able to shed a lot of that suspicion for education, but to this day i still have what is partly an irrational suspicion of the educated (or more correctly the institutionally educated - although appreciate this is probably out of date now given that university is more of a norm now than it was when I was school leaving age). One thing that does help me with though is to remember that feeling of resentment and distrust towards the 'educated'. So that even though these days I might share roughly the same level and type of knowledge as someone who does this stuff in academia for a day job, i share none of the other things that could generally be attributed to that type of person. And to bring it back to your original point, it's these things rather than the knowledge itself which I see as more of a problem when it comes to political activity

My interest in Marx's work has really next to no crossover with anything i've ever been politically involved in - real life experience and reactions to it, instinct, intuition and the grappling with the practicalities of doing things, etc are the things that drive that part of my life. I had a (somewhat unnatural) interest in the world of Finance and economics/business long before I had an interest in Marx's work and a big part in my engagement with Marx's work was to try and find a framework in which I could properly understand not only those 'narrow' topics, but the wider world in which we live in and to place them all within a political/social/economic/philosophical context & framework that I could both understand and see as a useful way to look at things. I didn't come to Marx through any active involvement in politics or being told I should read it, I came across it as something that could and has helped me to understand the world in a more systematic way. This may feedback subconsciously into any kind of political activity that I get involved in, but it doesn't feel like it does - in fact if you asked anyone in the IWCA (who doesn't post here) who knows me, they would probably have no idea that I had any kind of knowledge of Marx's work, because it's just not something that comes up or would be much use in anything i've ever been involved in (i think I mentioned in a previous post that you can come to pretty much the same conclusions as Marx just through experience of life - i.e. in total we don't get the value we create, it goes elsewhere) 

And that's probably one of the reasons that I end up droning on about Marx related stuff on here, because it's probably the only place where it ever comes up in my day to day life that I get a chance to talk about it. I'm not involved in anything academically with it, it has no role/place in any kind of employment i do, and it plays very little part in anything politically I do. I can appreciate though that anyone who just reads this stuff on here must thing jesus fuck is that all that guy ever goes on about it - but it's actually the reverse, here is the exception and pretty much the only place I ever talk about it. That's not to say it is a waste of time engaging with it however, it's been very useful for me in terms of how I think about the wider world and providing a convincing and illuminating framework in which to think about it. It's also a very satisfying personal thing to be able to grapple with something like that and actually make sense of it and engage with it - especially when you come at it from a perspective of being suspicious of and somewhat fearful of intellectual activity/knowledge/education etc..

jesus fuck that was longer than i intended it to be - that's me done on this now though, need to cut down on the time i spend on here anyway, been too long the last few days, cheers


----------



## past caring (Mar 16, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Any fit German birds tried out horizontal recruitment on you yet?


 
I seen one with a tinkle in her eye, will keep you posted.


----------



## love detective (Mar 16, 2012)

past caring said:


> at least getting some of those key concepts sorted so that you're not having to go back and work out the meaning of those terms later.


 
as the book goes on though, those key concepts get much more light shined on them and examined from all kind of perspectives and the gradual unfolding of the story really helps in nutting out what they all are and what they do etc.. and as these things are talked about much more in context of the situation that gives rise to them, it means that even if you don't get everything clear in your head from chapters 1-3, you will have done by the time you get to the end of the book

a lot of the stuff presented in the first three chapters is pretty much done as though they are a priori true - they are kind of stated as to what they are but not that much given around as to why they are (which can make it harder to get your head around them)  - so in a way the introduction is a kind of conclusion - and only really when you've moved on past those three chapters do you really get the chance (from the text) to get those key concepts sorted and see them discussed in a proper/meaningful explanatory context

It's just really different to how a lot of books about stuff start - i.e. some basics/fundamentals that then get built on as the thing moves on, such that if you don't grasp what's being talked about previously, you suffer as the thing moves on - the first three chapters of Capital is not like that though, and as you make your way through the thing you may even get fed up of Marx continually repeating & reasserting important points/concepts, so there's not the same amount of danger of moving ahead too quickly as like you get in other books


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 16, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's baldies fighting over a comb.


 
beardies fighting over a comb, surely?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 16, 2012)

love detective said:


> The other thing that I don't think you've given credit to in your post is perhaps the heightened ability of people who come from outside of this bubble, to be self-critical. I don't know about you but I grew up with a huge suspicion & resentment not only of the educated but education itself. This was a direct product of an education system that thought further education wasn't for the 'likes of us' - my school was essentially a holding pen until we were old enough to be taken on as a YTS (encouraged to do woodwork and metalwork rather than history etc.). So education became something to kick against, to be suspicious off, something that only those posh cunts got to do. As life went on however, over time I was thankfully able to shed a lot of that suspicion for education, but to this day i still have what is partly an irrational suspicion of the educated (or more correctly the institutionally educated - although appreciate this is probably out of date now given that university is more of a norm now than it was when I was school leaving age). One thing that does help me with though is to remember that feeling of resentment and distrust towards the 'educated'. So that even though these days I might share roughly the same level and type of knowledge as someone who does this stuff in academia for a day job, i share none of the other things that could generally be attributed to that type of person. And to bring it back to your original point, it's these things rather than the knowledge itself which I see as more of a problem when it comes to political activity


 
No need to go into that. I _know_ that full well, from my own experience. I think we already talked about it on a previous thread. No offence, but you're coming across as a little bit patronising in your approach and wrongly assuming I am unaware of or don't appreciate such things. I've had to deal with them myself.

edit: Beware the pointy-headedness. Self-awareness and criticism isn't just for the middle class.

Also, what I was on about earlier, is that for everyone, inluding the self-educated to a high level there are problems of reproducing the damaging self-appointed, domineering leader/led, teacher/pupil, member/supporter interaction that unquestioned middle class social prejudice, experience and expectations can bring elsewhere. There is a danger of defining yourself against something, and while doing so also constructing something the same/similar in its place in relation to other people. _You don't appreciate this, you don't correctly understand that, you're not advanced enough yet to grasp what I was getting at etc ... _

Witness your lecturing post, built on wrong assumptions as to my abilities to understand or appreciate something. I probably understand such things similarly or who knows, maybe in some ways better than you do.

Equality in this context shouldn't mean exactly the same, it can't, but this division of those with knowledge and those without, no matter where it is gotten, how it is acquired (outside of formal channels), can see the things people want gotten rid of appearing in perhaps unexpected places.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> *Social change doesn't come out of people being won to an alternative system then implementing it - it comes from people reacting to and then shaping the basic social relations that society is organised on*. *That in turn is driven by what people see as their and their families individual and collective needs and interests -* there's no requirement for acceptance of some worked out alternative system for that to happen - no need for formal decleration of revolutionary principles or membership of specific organisations. People _always_ act in that way. The question is whether these needs can be harnessed for the good of the present system (or alternatively kept from expression through various oppressive methods), or whether the present system thwarts the meeting of these needs. When it's the latter things change, challenges appear. Look at the last year for very good examples.


 
It would seem most were happy for the Thatcher, Major and Blair goverments to meet their needs, I dont think the examples of last year were representative of societys dissatisfaction despite what some seem to hope


----------



## mk12 (Mar 16, 2012)

Gone are the glory days of U75 when there would be hundreds of pages of discussion on the Spanish Civil War, Kronstadt, opposition movements in Russia, vanguardism and other anarcho v Leninist debates. Christ, I used to actually cite books in my posts (Kidd, 2012).

Bring back cockneyrebel and things would undoubtedly kick off again.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i've read some short essays by marx (mostly linked to on here) and the communist manifesto, and that's about it. capital terrifies me tbh.


 
I prefer the political stuff to the overly economic stuff. Give Critique of the Gotha Programme a go, and read his notes on Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> It would seem most were happy for the Thatcher, Major and Blair goverments to meet their needs, I dont think the examples of last year were representative of societys dissatisfaction despite what some seem to hope


 
Each of the governments you meantion (and each of their iteration post each general election) were returned by a minority of the electorate (with this last one needing the coalition of two parties to take government on a minority of the electorate). That electorate has *no* power to do anything *except* vote in or vote out one bunch of arseholes over another bunch of arseholes. The electorate don't even have a mechanism by which they can still vote, but merely to register dissatisfaction with *ALL* parties in the style of the American "none of the above" option.
For you to say "It would seem most were happy..." flies in the face of the lack of political empowerment UK citizens have; the lack of mechanisms to exercise any sort of meaningful control over the direction(s) that party politics takes. There's no meaningful way of expressing dissatisfaction with the _status quo_, and even the traditional routes (marches etc) are progressively being closed down by the state.  You're judging the book by its' cover, and along lines that the state are happy for you to use, because you implicate "most" people, rather than the real authors of the problems.


----------



## chilango (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> It would seem most were happy for the Thatcher, Major and Blair goverments to meet their needs, I dont think the examples of last year were representative of societys dissatisfaction despite what some seem to hope


 
Most?

Hardly.

Govt's are being elected with a rapidly declining share of the electorate.

Even at her height Thatcher only won about 33% of the electorate's votes. Major a little less. The final Blair Government was elected on a 22% share of the electorate's vote.

...and that's including tactical voters, voters "holding no illusions", etc. people whose votes shouldn't be counted as "happy" or "satisfied" with what they were voting for.

and of course this is just counting the registered electorate. In 2010 the BBC reported that the electoral commission reckoned 3.5 million who were eligible to register didn't including 56% of young people between the ages of 17 and 25, 31% of ethnic minorities and 79% of people who had moved address in the previous 12 months.

and then there about 18 million people in the UK who aren't eligible to register to vote.

all this adds up to govt's getting the vote a a pretty small proportion of the population, and actual approval from even less.

Nowhere near the "most" you bandy about...


----------



## chilango (Mar 16, 2012)

Put more simply. the final Blair Govt recieved the votes of around 15% percent of the British population.

*Meaning at least 85% did not vote for it.*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Gone are the glory days of U75 when there would be hundreds of pages of discussion on the Spanish Civil War, Kronstadt, opposition movements in Russia, vanguardism and other anarcho v Leninist debates. Christ, I used to actually cite books in my posts (Kidd, 2012).
> 
> Bring back cockneyrebel and things would undoubtedly kick off again.


 
There's a summoning ceremony, I think.

Or is that for calling Cthulhu?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 16, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Gone are the glory days of U75 when there would be hundreds of pages of discussion on the Spanish Civil War, Kronstadt, opposition movements in Russia, vanguardism and other anarcho v Leninist debates. Christ, I used to actually cite books in my posts (Kidd, 2012).
> 
> Bring back cockneyrebel and things would undoubtedly kick off again.


----------



## chilango (Mar 16, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Gone are the glory days of U75 when there would be hundreds of pages of discussion on the Spanish Civil War, Kronstadt, opposition movements in Russia, vanguardism and other anarcho v Leninist debates. Christ, I used to actually cite books in my posts (Kidd, 2012).
> 
> Bring back cockneyrebel and things would undoubtedly kick off again.


 
I looked at some of my early posts c.2004 the other day. I was wittering on like a cock about stuff like the Tambov peasant's rebellion to try and score cheap points against the trots.

Couldn't imagine doing that now.


----------



## JimW (Mar 16, 2012)

past caring said:


> I seen one with a tinkle in her eye


I'd read the Germans are into that.


----------



## past caring (Mar 16, 2012)

I set 'em up.....


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

chilango said:


> Most?
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry, forgot where I was for a moment, please substitute "those who can be bothered to vote" for "most"


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Sorry, forgot where I was for a moment, please substitute "those who can be bothered to vote" for "most"


 
You think not voting = apathy?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2012)

C'mon Kauto Star.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 16, 2012)

chilango said:


> I looked at some of my early posts c.2004 the other day. I was wittering on like a cock about stuff like the Tambov peasant's rebellion to try and score cheap points against the trots.
> 
> Couldn't imagine doing that now.


 
I remember having an in depth discussion about the background of the Kronstadt mutineers. Were they peasants? Had the "flower of the revolution" died in the Civil War?

As if their origin should determine whether they deserved to die or not.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 16, 2012)

chilango said:


> Is this any good?


I don't know, but the title annoys me for a start!  Why German?

I'll try and flick through it in the university bookshop next time I'm there, if they stock it.  I'll report back.


----------



## romeo2001 (Mar 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I also agree with the points that have been made about this stuff being used to shut people out as opposed to include people in it and educate people about marxism which is after all something that too many of the people who would benefit from it the most are the most excluded from it.
> 
> and so much is about social conditioning as well or people thinking they're not "brainy" enough to get involved in anything like that whereas in fact you don't need to be a genius or to have loads of books


 
 I genuinely dont understand how people think "educating people about marx" is ever going to happen when the vast majority of _people on the left_ cant be arsed to read his book?
How many religious leaders havnt read their bibles? and how many followers do you think they'd get ifthis became common knowledge to their believers?

I can just imagine the conversations on the doorsteps "yeah you should vote for us/come to a heightened state of consiousness cos this bloke marx says its gonna be really good - oh yeah what did he say in this book of his? - oh errrrrr errrrr cant say for definite "

The only people Ive seen on here who retain any real credibility are the IWCA and the anarchists - tho with the latter I suspect thats largely down to their reluctance to nail their colours to a mast on pretty much everything


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

JimW said:


> I'd read the Germans are into that.


 
Load of _scheisse_, Jim.






That's what the Germans are into.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

mk12 said:


> I remember having an in depth discussion about the background of the Kronstadt mutineers. Were they peasants? Had the "flower of the revolution" died in the Civil War?
> 
> As if their origin should determine whether they deserved to die or not.


 
I don't think the issue is whether they deserve to die or not, rather it was over the political nature of their mutiny and demands, which were revolutionary despite what lies Trostky and his muppet modern day followers pimp.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Apathy? hopelessness, laziness


Blagsta said:


> You think not voting = apathy?


 

Apathy? hopelessness, laziness? a general perception of 'they' are all the same why bother?
I dont really know


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Apathy? hopelessness, laziness
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

All these things are equivalent are they?


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Apathy? hopelessness, laziness
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
and for some people and understanding that parliamentary democracy is a sham and at best you are voting for middle managers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> and for some people and understanding that parliamentary democracy is a sham and at best you are voting for middle managers.


 
Hear bloody hear.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hear bloody hear.


Well we are all screwed then, anarchy and revolution arent on the cards, and even if we had a major revolt, mass civil disobedience, general strike etc(which you seem to think are all simmering away) what then? milliband and co?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Well we are all screwed then


Well spotted.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Well we are all screwed then, anarchy and revolution arent on the cards, and even if we had a major revolt, mass civil disobedience, general strike etc(which you seem to think are all simmering away) what then? milliband and co?


 
aww bless you seem to be under the illusion that power lies in parliament.

how about we seek to oppose these cuts and attacks at a grass roots level, see what can develop out of those struggles and seek to join them up, then when you have that stepping stone you can begin to see further ways to develop.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Well we are all screwed then...


 
Fuck, but you're a sharp one, aren't you? 



> ....anarchy and revolution arent on the cards, and even if we had a major revolt, mass civil disobedience, general strike etc(which you seem to think are all simmering away) what then? milliband and co?


 
You're not getting it.
People have been talking (on here and elsewhere) about extra-parliamentary solutions because they *recognise* the futility of "Miliband and co" being given a chance. This isn't about empowering one Oxbridge spunk-monkey over another, this is (for some) about scaring enough shit out of the parliamentary factions to bring about a more accountable politics, and for others it's about a fundamental change in politics, away from a bunch of time-servers in Whitehall disempowering them, and toward local empowerment.

Remember that Thatcher's local government legislation in the early to mid 1980s stripped away a massive amount of power and finance from local authorities, but didn't decrease their responsibilities. That's something that helped real local activists of whatever political colour getting involved in local politics, and allowed the same kind of  managerialisation to take hold in local government as had captured central government.  This was done deliberately (and  now everything has gone wrong, the Tories, who stripped these powers away in the first place, are trying to return some of them, with very thick strings attached, under their "localism" bill) in order to weaken community bonds and thereby "weaken social solidarities", in order to allow room for an attempt to permanently gerrymander demographics through "Right to Buy" and gentrification.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> aww bless you seem to be under the illusion that power lies in parliament.


 
Well, I suppose it does if you believe, as Coley seems to, that it's the only game in town, and that nothing else is even possible.



> how about we seek to oppose these cuts and attacks at a grass roots level, see what can develop out of those struggles and seek to join them up, then when you have that stepping stone you can begin to see further ways to develop.


 
Yep. Thing is, he must be old enough to actually remember what life was like pre-Thatcher, in terms of social solidarities, so I can't see why he doesn't "get" this, unless he's ideologically-invested in *not* doing so.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> aww bless you seem to be under the illusion that power lies in parliament.
> 
> how about we seek to oppose these cuts and attacks at a grass roots level, see what can develop out of those struggles and seek to join them up, then when you have that stepping stone you can begin to see further ways to develop.


 
Thats the point, apart from the agonised squeals on here and other sites there seems to no real opposition at grass roots or any other level,  more a, sorry to repeat myself,  cowed acceptance.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Thats the point, apart from the agonised squeals on here and other sites there seems to no real opposition at grass roots or any other level, more a, sorry to repeat myself, cowed acceptance.


 
well whether that's the case or not, and I think there will be a rise in opposition, it doesn't change the fact it's the only place where these assaults on the working class can be resisted.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, I suppose it does if you believe, as Coley seems to, that it's the only game in town, and that nothing else is even possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Thing is, *he must be old enough to actually remember what life was like pre-Thatcher, in terms of social solidarities,* so I can't see why he doesn't "get" this, unless he's ideologically-invested in *not* doing so.


Aye, I am, I remember when the working classes were prepared to to defend themselves and all they and their forefathers (ok and mothers, lets not be sexist) had achived, but since the miners strike there seems to a passive acceptance that what we have is as good as it will get.
Blairs betrayal and labours sell out to neo liberalism seems to have knocked the stuffing and fight out of the working classes.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> well whether that's the case or not, and I think there will be a rise in opposition, it doesn't change the fact it's the only place where these assaults on the working class can be resisted.


Resisted? when a teachers (rather limited) strike is met by howls from inconvenienced parents, when the main thrust of said strike was to protect pensions? socialism in the raw.........I dont think


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)

Coley - well done, showing how clued up you are on social and political history again


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Resisted? when a teachers (rather limited) strike is met by howls from inconvenienced parents, when the main thrust of said strike was to protect pensions? socialism in the raw.........I dont think


 
The only place the teachers strike was met with howls was the fucking media. 

The official issue for the strike might have been pensions but it was really about much more than that, atleast for people on the ground.

Anyway even if your argument is true it doesn't change the fact that power lies outside parliament and if the working class is going to fight back it will have to happen from a grassroots level.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Resisted? when a teachers (rather limited) strike is met by howls from inconvenienced parents, when the main thrust of said strike was to protect pensions? socialism in the raw.........I dont think


 
strike was well supported round here


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> strike was well supported round here


Strike? with respect I dont call a few days off a strike and was there any mention social solidarity? no it was about their bliddy middle class pensions


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Strike? with respect I dont call a few days off a strike and was there any mention social solidarity? no it was about their bliddy middle class pensions


 
eh?   Have some consistency ffs


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Strike? with respect I dont call a few days off a strike and was there any mention social solidarity? no it was about their bliddy middle class pensions


 
Aye the middle class pensions of teaching assistants, park keepers, dinner ladies and so on.

Fuck off you cunt.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> The only place the teachers strike was met with howls was the fucking media.
> 
> The official issue for the strike might have been pensions but it was really about much more than that, atleast for people on the ground.
> 
> Anyway even if your argument is true it doesn't change the fact that power lies outside parliament and if the working class is going to fight back it will have to happen from a grassroots level.


Fair enough, show me some examples of this working class 'fightback' and not the disjointed few days off some laughingly refer to as a 'strike'
Of course we could end this coalition in weeks or at least have it pointing in a different direction but there seems neither the will or inclination to do so from where I am sitting.
Lets say last years riots were an early manifestation of unrest (and I dont think the were) what was joe publics reaction? on the whole disgust.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Aye the middle class pensions of teaching assistants, park keepers, dinner ladies and so on.
> 
> Fuck off you cunt.


The strike was to protect pensions not jobs and in my book protecting and creating jobs is more important than pensions


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> eh? Have some consistency ffs


Put it this way inconvenience joe public with your strike and you will see any sympathy for your cause disappear


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Fair enough, show me some examples of this working class 'fightback' and not the disjointed few days off some laughingly refer to as a 'strike'
> Of course we could end this coalition in weeks or at least have it pointing in a different direction but there seems neither the will or inclination to do so from where I am sitting.
> Lets say last years riots were an early manifestation of unrest (and I dont think the were) what was joe publics reaction? on the whole disgust.


 
Presumably you have a different definition of "strike".  Would you like to share it with us?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Put it this way inconvenience joe public with your strike and you will see any sympathy for your cause disappear


 
was it a strike or not?  You can't even decide that yourself!


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Presumably you have a different definition of "strike". Would you like to share it with us?


Aye, a year out of work with the odd food parcel and very little support from the TU movement other than the printers and RMT


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Aye, a year out of work with the odd food parcel and very little support from the TU movement other than the printers and RMT


 
Right, this is your own personal definition is it, humpty?


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Right, this is your own personal definition is humpty?


Can I have that in English?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Can I have that in English?


 
you want your own personal language now, too?


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> you want your own personal language now, too?


No, just wondering what "Right, this is your own personal definition is it, humpty?" means?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> No, just wondering what "Right, this is your own personal definition is it, humpty?" means?


 
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”


Sorry, my knowledge of nursery rymes is on a par with my knowledge of marxist theory, non existent.
You asked what I thought a strike was and I told you, your reply made little sense.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Sorry, my knowledge of nursery rymes is on a par with my knowledge of marxist theory, non existent..


 
Not just nursery rhymes and Marxist theory to be fair


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Not just nursery rhymes and Marxist theory to be fair


True, but I am willing to learn and am avidly awaiting evidence of this working class revolution which is apparently about to erupt.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> True, but I am willing to learn and am avidly awaiting evidence of this working class revolution which is apparently about to erupt.


 
Christ you can't even read the forums correctly given no one has argued that.

I'm bored of you now, you're a bit shit at this.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Christ you can't even read the forums correctly given no one has argued that.
> 
> I'm bored of you now, you're a bit shit at this.


Bye bye then.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)

of you pop then


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

No, I'm not bored, just hoping to see some evidence of statements such as
@VP"You're not getting it.,People have been talking (on here and elsewhere) about extra-parliamentary solutions because they *recognise* the futility of "Miliband and co" being given a chance. This isn't about empowering one Oxbridge spunk-monkey over another, this is (for some) about scaring enough shit out of the parliamentary factions to bring about a more accountable politics",
Yes, people are talking, but thats about it,


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)

cool story bro


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Sorry, my knowledge of nursery rymes is on a par with my knowledge of marxist theory, non existent.
> You asked what I thought a strike was and I told you, your reply made little sense.


 
You have a different definition of what a strike is compared to everyone else.

Geddit?


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> cool story bro


So, no revolution today then?


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Put it this way inconvenience joe public with your strike and you will see any sympathy for your cause disappear


 
The whole point of a strike is to be an inconvenience.  If nobody was affected by it, there would be no point in striking.  By inconveniencing people, you demonstrate your value and your worth and people should see that your demands are not actually unreasonable, because without these people doing these jobs society would grind to a halt phenomenally quickly.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You have a different definition of what a strike is compared to everyone else.
> 
> Geddit?


No, I just dont call a few days causing people minor inconvenience "a strike"
Now 84 was a strike, a farcial cock up from beginning to end but a real strike nonetheless


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> So, no revolution today then?


 
I've not seen anyone on here argue that there will be any soon - maybe you could actually link to a post where they have?

I say maybe, but I know you won't and even if you would try you couldn't.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 16, 2012)

Why is it not a strike?  How long should people take time off work until in your eyes, it is then a strike?  What would you define that interim period as?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> No, I just dont call a few days causing people minor inconvenience "a strike"
> Now 84 was a strike, a farcial cock up from beginning to end but a real strike nonetheless


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)

all the kings horses


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Why is it not a strike? How long should people take time off work until in your eyes, it is then a strike? What would you define that interim period as?


A couple of days withdrawing your labour is a protest, now if the teachers, healthworkers etc went out with a msg to the govt that they were out until the 'reforms' were withdrawn and proper consultations were on offer, then that would be a strike IMOA.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> A couple of days withdrawing your labour is a protest, now if the teachers, healthworkers etc went out with a msg to the govt that they were out until the 'reforms' were withdrawn and proper consultations were on offer, then that would be a strike IMOA.


 
and the union would get their funds sequestered


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> and the union would get their funds sequestered


No, as VP pointed out, if you are going to have a strike you have to do it within the law but it can be done however the will of the workforce has to be there and it has to be a unified effort, now despite the sarky comments from some, all I am doing is questioning, despite the assault on the working classes we are witnessing, if such a will exists and from where I am sitting it doesnt seem to be.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> No, as VP pointed out, if you are going to have a strike you have to do it within the law but it can be done however the will of the workforce has to be there and it has to be a unified effort, now despite the sarky comments from some, all I am doing is questioning, despite the assault on the working classes we are witnessing, if such a will exists and from where I am sitting it doesnt seem to be.


 
what you are proposing is illegal, no union would officially support it


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)

coley = screaming in the face of language and reality


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I've not seen anyone on here argue that there will be any soon - maybe you could actually link to a post where they have?
> 
> I say maybe, but I know you won't and even if you would try you couldn't.


I used VPs post to highlight the sort of comment I was referring to, Revol68 was making the same points about a grassroots fightback but TBH I have seen no real signs of anything resembling organised opposition to what is being dumped on us.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> coley = screaming in the face of language and reality


Am I? are you saying the public service unions couldnt legally organise a national strike?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)




----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>


Your holiday snap hardly answers the question though does it?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Am I? are you saying the public service unions couldnt legally organise a national strike?


 
They'd have to all be out on the same issue afaik


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)




----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)




----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> They'd have to all be out on the same issue afaik


AFAIK threats to employment and working conditions are genuine reasons for striking, the fact that half a dozen unions are out for the same reason is not iilegal but if they wait until these 'reforms' have destroyed their powerbase than the last effective weapon capable of opposing this coalition is gone


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> AFAIK threats to employment and working conditions are genuine reasons for striking, the fact that half a dozen unions are out for the same reason is not iilegal but if they wait until these 'reforms' have destroyed their powerbase than the last effective weapon capable of opposing this coalition is gone


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>


I suspect you are trying to tell me summat but as I have a poor memory for faces you are wasting your time


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)




----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>


Current England manager?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Aye, I am, I remember when the working classes were prepared to to defend themselves and all they and their forefathers (ok and mothers, lets not be sexist) had achived, but since the miners strike there seems to a passive acceptance that what we have is as good as it will get.


 
Well, this is the point I'm making - since 1983 (because she started before the Coal Strike) Thatcher's govt had been pushing through legislation aimed at dealing with the unions. First they eliminated secondary picketing, then they set about (after the Coal Strike started) bringing in legislation that allowed the democratic processes of the union to be usurped by govt, with the sort of restrictions on strike action that made reactive striking and wildcatting something unions couldn't get involved with unless they wished to forfeit the assets their members had built up (in time bringing about the monstrous attitude in TU leaders exemplified by Bill cunting Morris when he shat on the Liverpool dockers in order to avoid any risk of sequestration).



> Blairs betrayal and labours sell out to neo liberalism seems to have knocked the stuffing and fight out of the working classes.


 
I don't see it as being that cut and dried. What we have is a generation and a half (basically anyone under about 35) who have little or no recollection of how things were, and who're having to learn this stuff anew, to whom TUs and broad solidarity between local members of the working classes are the stuff of history, and not even the history that's taught in schools. That's a generation and a half of people who in many cases have been raised with the message that individualism is all that matters, and that community-mindedness, altruism and even plain old-fashioned solidarity are things for the weak.

That's a fuckload of inertia to overcome for that many people, and yet we've seen more widespread questioning (in public, in the media etc) by "ordinary folk" of the political and economic _status quo_ than at any time I can remember since the mid 1980s.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> AFAIK threats to employment and working conditions are genuine reasons for striking, the fact that half a dozen unions are out for the same reason is not iilegal but if they wait until these 'reforms' have destroyed their powerbase than the last effective weapon capable of opposing this coalition is gone


 
it ain't as simple as that, especially now the courts are being used to find technical legalities to declare strikes illegal


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>


 
Looks like a bit of a perve.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, this is the point I'm making - since 1983 (because she started before the Coal Strike) Thatcher's govt had been pushing through legislation aimed at dealing with the unions. First they eliminated secondary picketing, then they set about (after the Coal Strike started) bringing in legislation that allowed the democratic processes of the union to be usurped by govt, with the sort of restrictions on strike action that made reactive striking and wildcatting something unions couldn't get involved with unless they wished to forfeit the assets their members had built up (in time bringing about the monstrous attitude in TU leaders exemplified by Bill cunting Morris when he shat on the Liverpool dockers in order to avoid any risk of sequestration).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I would agree with all of your points and yes people are more questioning but, and to use a well worn cliche, a big but, nobody seems to have a clue as to what can be done and all the while people are running about like headless chickens quoting marx and engels at each other, the coalition grinds remorselessly on.
Intelligently led, the public sector is the one weapon that could be effective against what is being proposed but, and I could be wrong, they seem only interested in protecting their own narrow interests


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> it ain't as simple as that, especially now the courts are being used to find technical legalities to declare strikes illegal


I am not saying it is simple, just doable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> The strike was to protect pensions not jobs and in my book protecting and creating jobs is more important than pensions


 
If that's the case, you're obviously not thinking through the economic consequences of a broad swathe of less well-off public sector pensioners. Btw, only about 30% of all public sector pension holders' households receive a pension that gives them an income, alongside their state pension, above the poverty line (calculated in the UK as 60% of median UK average earnings, so about £13,000 a year). The other 70% aren't so lucky.
Given the demographic shift to a preponderence of older people, it makes sense not to erode their pensions now for what are very much ideological reasons (there's no actual financial justification for doing so), when it's their spending power that will predominate 10-15 years down the line. This government is a government of short-termist fools, just like the governments of their predecessors for the last 30 years. They store up trouble for us, the people, and they don't give a fuck about doing so because they're not the ones who'll be caught between a rock and a hard place when everything goes tits up a few years from now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Put it this way inconvenience joe public with your strike and you will see any sympathy for your cause disappear


 
Not true. We've heard that bit of cant from the media so often that you've obviously internalised it, but here in London, where our transport system is quite prone to strikes, most passengers are still good-natured about them, despite the hassle it causes. Postal strikes too. You should pay less attention to what you're told, and more to what you experience.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> If that's the case, you're obviously not thinking through the economic consequences of a broad swathe of less well-off public sector pensioners. Btw, only about 30% of all public sector pension holders' households receive a pension that gives them an income, alongside their state pension, above the poverty line (calculated in the UK as 60% of median UK average earnings, so about £13,000 a year). The other 70% aren't so lucky.
> Given the demographic shift to a preponderence of older people, it makes sense not to erode their pensions now for what are very much ideological reasons (there's no actual financial justification for doing so), when it's their spending power that will predominate 10-15 years down the line. This government is a government of short-termist fools, just like the governments of their predecessors for the last 30 years. They store up trouble for us, the people, and they don't give a fuck about doing so because they're not the ones who'll be caught between a rock and a hard place when everything goes tits up a few years from now.


 
You miss my point, I am not saying pensions are not important but that the preservation and creation of jobs and fighting back against the worst effects of the proposed reforms is more important and public service unions coming out on 'strike' over their pensions presents a perception of narrow minded self interest


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not true. We've heard that bit of cant from the media so often that you've obviously internalised it, but here in London, where our transport system is quite prone to strikes, most passengers are still good-natured about them, despite the hassle it causes. Postal strikes too. You should pay less attention to what you're told, and more to what you experience.


One day stoppages, rolling strikes etc, try seeing if the tube drivers (for instance) go on strike for a solid month, then report back on how "good natured" your average commuter is


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Looks like a bit of a perve.


Than I hope it really isnt spanks photo


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> No, as VP pointed out, if you are going to have a strike you have to do it within the law but it can be done however the will of the workforce has to be there and it has to be a unified effort, now despite the sarky comments from some, all I am doing is questioning, despite the assault on the working classes we are witnessing, if such a will exists and from where I am sitting it doesnt seem to be.


 
The problem with what you're proposing, as the unions have been finding out since the days of new Labour, is that the Attorney general is usually quite willing to tie up valuable resources "micro-policing" TU procedure in order to find any minor flaw that can be used to set aside a strike ballot or primary ballot on whether to take *any* form of industrial action. The short strikes are the only operable compromise, unless and until the TUC or similar find a nice big money pot comparable to the funding the AG's dept can rely on, in order to take this "micro-policing" practice through the courts (we're talking multi-millions of pounds here).

You talk about unified will - well look at some of the ballots recently, turning up 70 and even 80% plus votes in favour of action including strike. The will is there. What isn't is a method whereby firm and prolonged industrial action can be taken without wholesale arrests and forfeiture of assets. Bear in mind that the current government would love an excuse to introduce even more restrictive laws w/r/t TUs. They were talking about it within weeks of taking power, and it's never far from the top of the CBI's agenda.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> Am I? are you saying the public service unions couldnt legally organise a national strike?


 
We're talking about half a dozen major unions, plus a fair few minor ones (including one bunch of muppets with a "no striking" charter  ) all of which are all subject to the same laws regarding secondary strikes, which is what any coordinated attempt at a general public services strike could be labelled and treated as by the govt. Name one union as ringleader, and the rest as secondary strikers.
It'd be great if it could be pulled off, but legally it'd be immensely difficult.


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> You miss my point, I am not saying pensions are not important but that the preservation and creation of jobs and fighting back against the worst effects of the proposed reforms is more important and public service unions coming out on 'strike' over their pensions presents a perception of narrow minded self interest


You are aware that the pension changes produce a direct pay cut for public sector workers, right? Take home pay is reduced by up to 2% immediately and that's just phase 1 - they plan to increase it in three phases. Some will likely lose 6% of their take home pay. And then their (not very gold-plated at all) pensions will be worth less once they retire.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

coley said:


> I would agree with all of your points and yes people are more questioning but, and to use a well worn cliche, a big but, nobody seems to have a clue as to what can be done and all the while people are running about like headless chickens quoting marx and engels at each other, the coalition grinds remorselessly on.
> Intelligently led, the public sector is the one weapon that could be effective against what is being proposed but, and I could be wrong, they seem only interested in protecting their own narrow interests


 
I'll be buggered if I've heard many people quoting Marx and Engels to each other. It's all a bit more quotidian than that, and better for it.


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> We're talking about half a dozen major unions, plus a fair few minor ones (including one bunch of muppets with a "no striking" charter  ) all of which are all subject to the same laws regarding secondary strikes, which is what any coordinated attempt at a general public services strike could be labelled and treated as by the govt. Name one union as ringleader, and the rest as secondary strikers.
> It'd be great if it could be pulled off, but legally it'd be immensely difficult.


I am not saying it wouldnt be difficult but that its doable, the Unions, esp the larger ones have the resources to take legal advice on how it could be done, however the longer they avoid biting the bullet the harder it will be.
I have no idealogical problem with capitalism or the private sector but this lot horrorfies me, anyway I am on the wrong side of a bottle of aldis finest and am away to bed


----------



## coley (Mar 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'll be buggered if I've heard many people quoting Marx and Engels to each other. It's all a bit more quotidian than that, and better for it.


Sorry, a disgruntled shot at some whos only experience of socialism seem to be have been aquired in the Uni bar.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 17, 2012)

revol68 said:


> I don't think the issue is whether they deserve to die or not, rather it was over the political nature of their mutiny and demands, which were revolutionary despite what lies Trostky and his muppet modern day followers pimp.


 
Enemy within surely?


----------



## mk12 (Mar 17, 2012)

revol68 said:


> I don't think the issue is whether they deserve to die or not, rather it was over the political nature of their mutiny and demands, which were revolutionary despite what lies Trostky and his muppet modern day followers pimp.


 
I agree with you. Regardless of their background or whether the composition of the garrison had changed over 4 years, the demands were entirely reasonable and in keeping with Kronstadt's radicalism in 1917.

I just remember a Spart pamphlet going to great lengths to prove that the composition had changed; the "flower of the revolution" that Trotsky praised in 1917 had all left Kronstadt and had died during the Civil War. Those left (who rebelled in 1921) were recent peasant recruits. I guess now I think: so what? Why does that change anything? I guess it does to those who think peasant grievances were irrelevant compared to industrial worker grievances.

EDIT TO ADD: Getzler proved the majority of the mutineers were there in 1917 anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2012)

Yes, i destroyed you and cockers on this on the revolution in colour thread. Destroyed.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 17, 2012)

I'm still recovering from it.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 17, 2012)

i am very sympathetic to the anti deutsch/ anti national currents but my (skim) reading of kittens is very off putting- far too many words!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2012)

They're mental bp! Guilt that i can smell from here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2012)

coley said:


> I am not saying it wouldnt be difficult but that its doable, the Unions, esp the larger ones have the resources to take legal advice on how it could be done, however the longer they avoid biting the bullet the harder it will be.


 
Well, as Baroness Kennedy said _apropos_ similar in the Brown years, it's not the advice that costs money, it's when the unions get dragged into court by the govt and their barrage of expensive lawyers, and run the risk of having costs awarded against them.



> I have no idealogical problem with capitalism or the private sector but this lot horrorfies me, anyway I am on the wrong side of a bottle of aldis finest and am away to bed


 
Red wine, eh? Your head isn't going to thank you!


----------



## coley (Mar 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, as Baroness Kennedy said _apropos_ similar in the Brown years, it's not the advice that costs money, it's when the unions get dragged into court by the govt and their barrage of expensive lawyers, and run the risk of having costs awarded against them.
> The British airways dispute proves it can be done
> 
> 
> ...


Red wine? cant abide the stuff, white only


----------



## revol68 (Mar 17, 2012)

coley said:


> Red wine? cant abide the stuff, white only


 
what is wrong with you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2012)

coley said:


> Red wine? cant abide the stuff, white only


 
Oh. Are you sure you're a male?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2012)

revol68 said:


> what is wrong with you?


 
Something neurological and linked to the tastebuds, obviously!


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 17, 2012)

mk12 said:


> I'm still recovering from it.


 
Don't mess with The Boss


----------



## coley (Mar 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Something neurological and linked to the tastebuds, obviously!


Sorry, I have tried a lot of reds and the overwhelming taste is of sour vinegar, mebbes I'm just to sweet natured?
Anyway Scotland has  just been hammered by italy, sweet days c,mon yous paddies


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, i destroyed you and cockers on this on the revolution in colour thread. Destroyed.


 
are you deliberately posting stuff for Lusty to quote?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> are you deliberately posting stuff for Lusty to quote?


 
Could make a pamphlet out of it


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> are you deliberately posting stuff for Lusty to quote?


yes


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2012)

@beefybotham


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 17, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Could make a pamphlet out of it


Pretty much has done already!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>


 
That's a smiley off a Sheffield Wednesday forum I sometimes go on. Thought I was going mental when I saw it on here, at first I thought I must be on there and wondered why people were talking about sectarianism on the left on a football forum


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 17, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's a smiley off a Sheffield Wednesday forum I sometimes go on. Thought I was going mental when I saw it on here, at first I thought I must be on there and wondered why people were talking about sectarianism on the left on a football forum


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>


 
Nah, see I knew I was on Urban that time. Fool me once: shame on me. Fool me twice: can't get fooled again


----------

