# Crisis after crisis, capital is in trouble, but no left resurgence....



## treelover (Jul 3, 2012)

Seemingly capital and the current political system is in crisis:both in financial terms with the former and of legitimacy for them both, since the 1930's, perhaps the 1880's. Politicians careers and reputations have been destroyed with the expenses scandal, an massive economic crash and now corruption at the heart of the City Of London and maybe even the venerated Bank of England. Mass unemployment not seen since the 1980's but with a much more brutal and minimal welfare programme, young people are being told they have little future and their lives are certainly massively circumscribed. Yet 'what is left of the left' (WILOTL) has made no headway at all, indeed except for new groupings like UKuncut, Occupy and now the excellent Boycott Workfare, they have been largely invisible throughout throughout the crises, left wing blogs pontificate and bluster with certainties when in reality they have no power and little influence over events.

Usually, at times like this, for better or worse, new dynamic political formations are formed, or consolidated, the 'dividend' as the SWP call it, is massive and an newly energised left emerges..

Of course, in some countries like Greece and maybe in the near future Spain, Italy, this has happened, but here?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jul 3, 2012)

What's your explanation?


----------



## treelover (Jul 3, 2012)

I don't have one, basically an historical observation, looking for constructive replys though...


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jul 3, 2012)

so what you're saying, is that apart from those bits of the left that have done stuff, campaigned, and taken action, no one on the left has done stuff, campaigned, or taken action?

i think one of the biggest problems of the left is that we spend loads of time demanding that we stop bickering and unite, but refuse to work with anyone whoser politics isn't exactly the same as ours.  "stop fighting and do it my way".


----------



## treelover (Jul 3, 2012)

I'm not saying that, not criticising, i'm saying a large mass based left organisation has not emerged or benefited from the turmoil, read the papers, people are more angry about the bankers than any time since the 30s'

maybe mass based left orgs have had their day, i don't know..


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 3, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> so what you're saying, is that apart from those bits of the left that have done stuff, campaigned, and taken action, no one on the left has done stuff, campaigned, or taken action?


 
Isn't the point more that people who previously weren't active on the left aren't becoming active as a result of the financial crisis etc? I have to say that would be my impression too (although I can't back that up, maybe I'm just not seeing it).


----------



## elbows (Jul 3, 2012)

I consider a loss of faith in ideologies, leaders, parties, institutions to be quite a factor, especially when its coupled with the level of global interdependence that we see today.

And Im not just talking about the UK, although there are clearly places where faith has not dropped to such staggering lows. Even so, the leaderless attempts at revolution in places like Egypt have been interesting, though no less flawed.

Im sure individualism, balkanisation, television and consumerism play their part in this, and it can always be reversed out of sheer desperation once things become totally unbearable for enough people. But I make no predictions about when or where this may happen.

If I mention the possibility that to a certain extent we have allowed our differences to cancel each other out, I don't just mean the left.

I do wank on about the potential of the internet sometimes, even though to date in many ways I consider its been part of the above problems rather than part of the solution. Still, necessity as the mother of invention looks likely to come into play at some point. This may involve more 'holding your nose' than indulging in utopian thinking in future, but who is to say at this point.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 3, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> so what you're saying, is that apart from those bits of the left that have done stuff, campaigned, and taken action, no one on the left has done stuff, campaigned, or taken action?
> 
> i think one of the biggest problems of the left is that we spend loads of time demanding that we stop bickering and unite, but refuse to work with anyone whoser politics isn't exactly the same as ours. "stop fighting and do it my way".


 
This is it. No unity. Except in bickering


----------



## treelover (Jul 3, 2012)

I'm wondering why something major hasn't emerged, as i note above, maybe nothing mass based will...

btw, the student protests of 2010 could have been the catalyst...


----------



## audiotech (Jul 3, 2012)

Some gutless trade union leaders, limiting a fightback to narrow, sectional interests and wedded to Labourism doesn't help matters here.


----------



## treelover (Jul 3, 2012)

Yes, that is definitely an element..


----------



## elbows (Jul 3, 2012)

Seeing as I already mentioned television and a much of other stuff, I may as well throw in drugs, fame, and conversely a lack of charismatic leaders.

If I want to be a bit more disciplined when judging which factors count most, it would be remiss of me not to focus on the destruction of manual-labour where a large chunk of the local community worked in the same place.

Im a great big fan of diversity in a multitude of different forms, yet its hard to escape the downsides of such change.

But there is a limit to apathy somewhere, it doesn't feed families. Those wondering why we haven't seen a movement gain momentum yet simply need to wait longer, Im sorry to say that things look like they need to get much worse for far more people before some slumbering giants awaken.


----------



## treelover (Jul 3, 2012)

One of the things that I do think now is that events happen in a form of 'hyper-time' particulalry in the media, they are seen as incredible game changing events at the time(just watch Newsnight archives on the above student protests) and are then largely forgotten, 'events' don't appear to have substance as much any more, so don't accumulate and move people to action..


----------



## contadino (Jul 3, 2012)

Tony Blair is the issue. Not only did he spend 3 terms implementing Tory policies, but he also left the credibility of the centre-left in tatters.  The resultant dienfranchisement shouldn't really surprise anyone.


----------



## treelover (Jul 3, 2012)

Btw, there is now a million under 25 years old unemployed, what are they feeling?, are they blaming themselves, are the distractions: xbox, booze, drugs, tv, festical culture, etc, enough of a distraction to ameilorate their conditions and blunt their anger..



won't find out on here though, not many under 40!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2012)

elbows said:


> If I want to be a bit more disciplined when judging which factors count most, it would be remiss of me not to focus on the destruction of manual-labour where a large chunk of the local community worked in the same place.


 
Very important point there, esp when tied to the destruction of old school w/c housing - for all the social conservatism they could breed these workplaces and areas did produce communities - and that's exactly why they had to go. The workplace based community was solidified by territorial ties outside of the enterprise (in terms of time as well as space), and the territory based communities received support from the workplaces. The workplace community produced wage rigidity and the social community extend the struggles to the social-wage, to reproduction. We don't have these as start points anymore, we have to construct them again from scratch in worse conditions (official multi-culturalism, decentralised work processes, flexibility, lack of social housing, individualism/atomisation etc). That doesn't happen overnight, it's not something that is switched on or off - it takes years, decades to happen.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jul 3, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Isn't the point more that people who previously weren't active on the left aren't becoming active as a result of the financial crisis etc? I have to say that would be my impression too (although I can't back that up, maybe I'm just not seeing it).


 
Well, I have to say there were a lot of first-timers of all ages at Occupy.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 3, 2012)

treelover said:


> won't find out on here though, not many under 40!


Oi!


----------



## camouflage (Jul 3, 2012)

treelover said:


> Seemingly capital and the current political system is in crisis:both in financial terms with the former and of legitimacy for them both, since the 1930's, perhaps the 1880's. Politicians careers and reputations have been destroyed with the expenses scandal, an massive economic crash and now corruption at the heart of the City Of London and maybe even the venerated Bank of England. Mass unemployment not seen since the 1980's but with a much more brutal and minimal welfare programme, young people are being told they have little future and their lives are certainly massively circumscribed. Yet 'what is left of the left' (WILOTL) has made no headway at all, indeed except for new groupings like UKuncut, Occupy and now the excellent Boycott Workfare, they have been largely invisible throughout throughout the crises, left wing blogs pontificate and bluster with certainties when in reality they have no power and little influence over events.
> 
> Usually, at times like this, for better or worse, new dynamic political formations are formed, or consolidated, the 'dividend' as the SWP call it, is massive and an newly energised left emerges..
> 
> Of course, in some countries like Greece and maybe in the near future Spain, Italy, this has happened, but here?


 
The Left is Dead, Long Live the Left.


----------



## elbows (Jul 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Very important point there, esp when tied to the destruction of old school w/c housing - for all the social conservatism they could breed these workplaces and areas did produce communities - and that's exactly why they had to go. The workplace based community was solidified by territorial ties outside of the enterprise (in terms of time as well as space), and the territory based communities received support from the workplaces. The workplace community produced wage rigidity and the social community extend the struggles to the social-wage, to reproduction. We don't have these as start points anymore, we have to construct them again from scratch in worse conditions (official multi-culturalism, decentralised work processes, flexibility, lack of social housing, individualism/atomisation etc). That doesn't happen overnight, it's not something that is switched on or off - it takes years, decades to happen.


 
And to pick on just a small corner of this subject, first the working mens clubs were eroded and now we are at the point where even the normal local pubs are in severe decline in many places.

For many these days I suspect one of the few opportunities they have to briefly experience a sense of community is if they are students living away from home. But then I would say that, since it was my own experience. Im going to be 40 in a few years and yet whenever I remember one of my dreams (actual dream when asleep, not my hopes), Im still back there in 1995.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2012)

elbows said:


> And to pick on just a small corner of this subject, first the working mens clubs were eroded and now we are at the point where even the normal local pubs are in severe decline in many places.
> 
> For many these days I suspect one of the few opportunities they have to briefly experience a sense of community is if they are students living away from home. But then I would say that, since it was my own experience. Im going to be 40 in a few years and yet whenever I remember one of my dreams (actual dream when asleep, not my hopes), Im still back there in 1995.


Yes, things are having to come from temporary or transitory  'encounters' rather than from the normal social conditions of everyday life (or maybe a better way of putting it is that we experience modern social conditions in a temporary or transitory form - despite the social relations underpinning those conditions not changing very much at all). Split work-forces strategy on a social level.


----------



## elbows (Jul 3, 2012)

And so we find ourselves here on the internet, with the phrase 'we're all in this together' ringing especially hollow.


----------



## elbows (Jul 3, 2012)

At this point Id like to link to the 1960 Dennis Potter documentary "Between Two Rivers' but I don't think its on youtube etc.


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 3, 2012)

treelover said:


> I'm not saying that, not criticising, i'm saying a large mass based left organisation has not emerged or benefited from the turmoil, read the papers, people are more angry about the bankers than any time since the 30s'
> 
> maybe mass based left orgs have had their day, i don't know..


 


I'm not sure that this mass anger really exists. Sure enough, the usual crowd turn out for demos, many of them in silly hats and funny trousers, but most workers are absent. I come across far more mass apathy than anger. People may tut-tut when some scandal hits the headlines, but they tend to shrug their shoulders and forget about it, voting once again for the mainstream parties when its time to shuffle the deckchairs again.

Professional lefties and anarchos etc sometimes say that it will be different when the workers in Greece or somewhere finally turn, but even in those places the greater likelihood is that those suffering most will stop short of looking for an alternative (as we've just seen). Or if they don't stop but press ahead, workers elsewhere will look on and see them crushed by international capital, foreign governments and other bodies whose actions they can't control or even fully predict.

Perhaps the workers movement internationally is a shadow of its former self because it and the radical left failed to come up with a coherent alternative to capitalism when the time was ripe for one. The remants now offer a confused message, and (occasionally) measures that workers know in their hearts cannot be implemented in the face of the largely unassailable position capital has now created for itself. The capitalists and their vast army of stooges can afford to let us have as many meetings and break as many windows as we want, especially when the information explosion constantly offers them new ways of confusing and fooling us. Maybe socialism's function was to humanise capitalism, with capital partly giving way before reassembling and preparing to brush the achievements of the workers movements aside (as we've been seeing for three decades) when it knows that the means of resistance have been weakened beyond repair. Capitalism will fall into crisis again and again but without the opposition being able to offer a coherent, convincing alternative it will survive, bruised and battered, until it consumes itself and the rest of us along with it.


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 3, 2012)

treelover said:


> Yes, that is definitely an element..


 


It isn't an element; it's a cliche.


----------



## elbows (Jul 3, 2012)

LLETSA said:


> It isn't an element; it's a cliche.


 
And whats your special brand of hopelessness then?


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 3, 2012)

contadino said:


> Tony Blair is the issue. Not only did he spend 3 terms implementing Tory policies, but he also left the credibility of the centre-left in tatters. The resultant dienfranchisement shouldn't really surprise anyone.


 


He didn't implement Tory policies, he implemented Labour policies. Labour's agenda is set by capital, leaving its leadership to neuter the membership (most of whom don't need neutering) and try to offer something that looks vaguely like it's for 'the ordinary person'. It was always that way; it was conditions which have all but disppeared that left the door open for what now seems like radicalism.

Isn't it time the illusion of a pure old Labour party that was 'betrayed' was consigned to the garbage can?


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 3, 2012)

elbows said:


> And whats your special brand of hopelessness then?


 



Is hopelessness a brand now as well as everything else?

If I could see hope I'd tell you. But as I can't, I'm not just going to make it up, so you'll just have to swallow what's on offer. Or not-it makes no difference.


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 3, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> This is it. No unity. Except in bickering


 


Let's have unity in wetness.


----------



## JHE (Jul 3, 2012)

The left is largely discredited. In order to become a serious movement, the left will have to come up with a feasible programme and persuade millions of people that there is a workable and desirable socialism. Pointing out that capitalism is unfair and prone to crisis is nothing like enough and militancy is no substitute for persuading people of socialism.

We are told that another world is possible. OK, tell us about this other world.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 3, 2012)

"





JHE said:


> The left is largely discredited. In order to become a serious movement, the left will have to come up with a feasible programme and persuade millions of people that there is a workable and desirable socialism. Pointing out that capitalism is unfair and prone to crisis is nothing like enough and militancy is no substitute for persuading people of socialism.
> 
> We are told that another world is possible. OK, tell us about this other world.


"...A world of never ending happiness
U can always see the sun, day or night

So when u call up that shrink in Beverly Hills
U know the one - Dr Everything'll Be Alright
Instead of asking him how much of your time is left
Ask him how much of your mind, baby..."
"Let's go crazy" - Prince


----------



## audiotech (Jul 3, 2012)

LLETSA said:


> It isn't an element; it's a cliche.


 
It's not a phrase I hear often amongst the general population, whereas 'we are all doomed' does come up from time to time.. Ex Labour party members, who once had illusions, now cynics, are prone to this type of thought I've found.


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 3, 2012)

audiotech said:


> It's not a phrase I hear often amongst the general population, whereas 'we are all doomed' does come up from time to time..


 


It's a cliche on the left though. As long as I can remember people on the organised left have ranted about 'gutless trade union leaders,' sectional interetts etc. It isn't that there's no truth in it, it's that the current malaise goes much deeper.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 3, 2012)

LLETSA said:


> It's a cliche on the left though. As long as I can remember people on the organised left have ranted about 'gutless trade union leaders,' sectional interetts etc. It isn't that there's no truth in it, it's that the current malaise goes much deeper.


 
I wouldn't even say it was a cliche on the left, apart from a very small minority in either revolutionary sects, or amongst anarchists.


----------



## elbows (Jul 3, 2012)

The much broader cliche about unions seemed to be more along the lines of that carry on film set in the toilet factory, though I probably need to update this opinion as both distorted and accurate memories of 1970's continue to fade out at quite the pace.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 3, 2012)

Trade union leaders were always gutless, even during the high tide of industrial direct action. What's changed is the members and their behaviour not the bureaucrats


----------



## audiotech (Jul 4, 2012)

Post office engineering workers took some delight at sneering at postal workers on strike in '71 I recall, as well as some scab telephonists crossing our picket lines. Tom Jackson, General Secretary of the UPW and the tears rolling down his face is a story for another time.


----------



## camouflage (Jul 4, 2012)

LLETSA said:


> I'm not sure that this mass anger really exists. Sure enough, the usual crowd turn out for demos, many of them in silly hats and funny trousers, but most workers are absent. I come across far more mass apathy than anger. People may tut-tut when some scandal hits the headlines, but they tend to shrug their shoulders and forget about it, voting once again for the mainstream parties when its time to shuffle the deckchairs again.
> 
> Professional lefties and anarchos etc sometimes say that it will be different when the workers in Greece or somewhere finally turn, but even in those places the greater likelihood is that those suffering most will stop short of looking for an alternative (as we've just seen). Or if they don't stop but press ahead, workers elsewhere will look on and see them crushed by international capital, foreign governments and other bodies whose actions they can't control or even fully predict.
> 
> Perhaps the workers movement internationally is a shadow of its former self because it and the radical left failed to come up with a coherent alternative to capitalism when the time was ripe for one. The remants now offer a confused message, and (occasionally) measures that workers know in their hearts cannot be implemented in the face of the largely unassailable position capital has now created for itself. The capitalists and their vast army of stooges can afford to let us have as many meetings and break as many windows as we want, especially when the information explosion constantly offers them new ways of confusing and fooling us. Maybe socialism's function was to humanise capitalism, with capital partly giving way before reassembling and preparing to brush the achievements of the workers movements aside (as we've been seeing for three decades) when it knows that the means of resistance have been weakened beyond repair. Capitalism will fall into crisis again and again but without the opposition being able to offer a coherent, convincing alternative it will survive, bruised and battered, until it consumes itself and the rest of us along with it.


 
On a side note... for some reason I find economics interesting and have taken to listening to podcasts about it. annoyingly, many of these podcats seem to be put out by crack-pot whackadoodle Ludwig von Mises types that hate society and want to watch it all burn down in a glorious un-curtailed furnace of raging laizzes-faire market psycopathy. Don't get me wrong, I find these discussions interesting because the subject is interesting even when I vehemently disagree witht the fuck-wittery these people come out with. however after a while I decided I'd had enough of listening t this rubbish and set myself the task of finding ome more left-leaning discussions on economics and so on.

There are none, across the entire internet.

What the Left has to say on economic thought is fuck-all it seems, at least in the podcastosphere. Hopefully I've just been looking in the wrong places and someone can help me out with a useful link or two, but most of what I found consisted Left-leaning loon-spuddery and whoolly nonsense. I find it really annoying when I come across Left-wingers who think the whole socialism thing is basically about being nice to one another because over-wise it's not fair (actually it's about sustainable human society and not some sort of uncivilised regress back to a club-weilding stone age as far as I'm concerned). The Libertards aren't sitting on their hands, they've seeded the internet with their ideas in an accessible way and are working hard every day to criticize the prevailing capitalist thought as clearly and concisely as they can. Fair play to em even though they suffer from a form of autism, too bad the 'Left' isn't showing the same level of heart. Perhaps it really is irrelevant. 

I don't believe that though, 'The Left is Dead, Long Live the Left', we need a new Left, as long as there's Right there's Left.

random stream out.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 4, 2012)

JHE said:


> The left is largely discredited. In order to become a serious movement, the left will have to come up with a feasible programme and persuade millions of people that there is a workable and desirable socialism. Pointing out that capitalism is unfair and prone to crisis is nothing like enough and militancy is no substitute for persuading people of socialism.
> 
> We are told that another world is possible. OK, tell us about this other world.


 
If it is something feasible, obtainable,
.....Let us dream it now,
And pray for a possible land
.....Not of sleepwalkers, not of angry puppets,
But where both hand and brain can understand
.....The movements of our fellows;
Where life is an instrument and none
.....Is debarred his natural music,
Where the waters of life are free of the ice-blockade of hunger
.....And thought is as free as the sun,
Where the altars of sheer power and mere profit
.....Have fallen to disuse,
Where nobody sees the use
.....Of buying money and blood at the cost of blood and money,
Where the individual, no longer squandered
.....In self-assertion, works with the rest, endowed
With the split vision of a juggler and the quick lock of a taxi,
.....Where the people are more than a crowd.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 4, 2012)

camouflage said:


> On a side note... for some reason I find economics interesting and have taken to listening to podcasts about it. annoyingly, many of these podcats seem to be put out by crack-pot whackadoodle Ludwig von Mises types that hate society and want to watch it all burn down in a glorious un-curtailed furnace of raging laizzes-faire market psycopathy. Don't get me wrong, I find these discussions interesting because the subject is interesting even when I vehemently disagree witht the fuck-wittery these people come out with. however after a while I decided I'd had enough of listening t this rubbish and set myself the task of finding ome more left-leaning discussions on economics and so on.
> 
> There are none, across the entire internet.
> 
> ...


 
You should start here.


----------



## camouflage (Jul 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You should start here.


 
sure, well tanks anywhy.


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

LLETSA said:


> It's a cliche on the left though. As long as I can remember people on the organised left have ranted about 'gutless trade union leaders,' sectional interetts etc. It isn't that there's no truth in it, it's that the current malaise goes much deeper.


 
Dont forget about the bloody middle class!


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2012)

good thread, lots of interesting points made that i'd never really thought about.

it seems like most of the changes in society & technology etc over the past 50 years or so have - whether through accident or design - conspired to make collective (and left wing) action more difficult, except in rather forced unnatural groupings. something to chew over, 'cause there doesn't seem any obvious ways out that don't involve some proper grim shit. hm.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> Dont forget about the bloody middle class!


 
Of course.  The people who helped to give the world fascism.


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

killer b said:


> good thread, lots of interesting points made that i'd never really thought about.
> 
> it seems like most of the changes in society & technology etc over the past 50 years or so have - whether through accident or design - conspired to make collective (and left wing) action more difficult, except in rather forced unnatural groupings. something to chew over, 'cause there doesn't seem any obvious ways out that don't involve some proper grim shit. hm.


 
How do you think technology has made collective action more difficult?


----------



## rorymac (Jul 4, 2012)

It's because technology, we were told was going to make all our lives easier

When we were children we were lead to believe that life would be easier when machines did the work

It's made life easier for sure .. for a bunch of capitalist cunts with nought souls who keep fucking us over and over again

They own the politicians .. they own everything, we have no unions and our own workmates are our biggest enemies as regards changing anything

Buuuutttt we never know what's round the corner


----------



## ayatollah (Jul 4, 2012)

The "Left" in reformist, radical, and various strands of "revolutionery" seem to me to be pretty active and growing fast in places like Greece, Spain, France, Portugal, and also Egypt. A lot of the observations made across the posts about the "destructured", "atomized" nature of a lot of working class work and living experience after 30 years of neo Liberal/globalised restructuring of the UK economy and society is obviously massively relevant. a lot of the traditional jobs of the "big battalions" of the working class in Britain now ,through globalisation, have been exported , and foreign workers now produce these goods to export back to us from China, etc, Steel, Coal, cars, etc.

The UK, Still one of the core countries of world imperialism, with so many of its workers now "coupon clippers" for the "back office functions" of Global capitalism, and so many others reduced to "surplus labour reserves" on benefits , is not a good place to start looking for the earliest or most political response to the Global capitalist crisis. Apart from anything else, sitting as we are right in a part the heartland of capitalism, the "austerity" measures implicit in the crisis haven't really even started to hit us on a mass level yet. Just wait a few years, and when the austerity cuts really do bite UK politics will take a more radical turn - to Far Right as well as radical Left. Look at the incredible speed with which the radical Syriza Left grew in membership and popular vote  in Greece after just  a few years of mega austerity.


Of course if LLETSA is right:-

" Capitalism will fall into crisis again and again but without the opposition being able to offer a coherent, convincing alternative it will survive, bruised and battered, until it consumes itself and the rest of us along with it. "

then we're all truly fucked.But if anyone feels that way, like LLETSA from innumerable doomster posts, , I fail to see the point of putting it on a thread really - better to just get pissed in the pub ?


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> How do you think technology has made collective action more difficult?


 
what butch and others were saying upthread about communities where people all work & live in the same place rang true to me is all. and the reasons why there are less and less such communities is not purely down to social forces. in times gone by, working and living in the same community wasn't a choice, it was a necessity. now, thanks to motorised transport, i can work in a place where i have no connection to the people i work with other than the workplace itself. i spend my evenings wasting time posting bollocks to you dickheads instead of getting to know my neighbours and smashing the state with them (and presumably they do something similar). there's plenty more, but i'm sure you get the idea.


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> Dont forget about the bloody middle class!


 

What about them?


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 4, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Of course if LLETSA is right:-
> 
> " Capitalism will fall into crisis again and again but without the opposition being able to offer a coherent, convincing alternative it will survive, bruised and battered, until it consumes itself and the rest of us along with it. "
> 
> then we're all truly fucked.But if anyone feels that way, like LLETSA from innumerable doomster posts, , I fail to see the point of putting it on a thread really - better to just get pissed in the pub ?


 

You always seem to take this rather petulant approach to anybody who can't see the glorious future. Some people can bring themselves to be optimistic in almost any set of circumstances. Others are natural pessimists. Both will always exist no matter what. What's the problem? Why does it mean you can't continue to entertain us with happy clapping Socialist Workerisms?

Take it any further and you'll be arguing for Socialist Realism.


----------



## where to (Jul 4, 2012)

my dad pins it on the soviet union collapsing.  SU best thing for the west, worst thing for the russians. they didn't push their luck in case we switched.  now there is no counter balance.

certainly the greyness and defeat of the SU is a massive obstacle for any alternative or socialism to overcome.

me, i would just like a left that talks about economics and money. standard of living. one that wants to pull together a body of power to improve millions of peoples lives rather than screaming to nobody who is listening aboutulta-minority topics. no matter how virtuous.


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

rorymac said:


> It's because technology, we were told was going to make all our lives easier
> 
> When we were children we were lead to believe that life would be easier when machines did the work
> 
> It's made life easier for sure .. for a bunch of capitalist cunts with nought souls who keep fucking us over and over again


 
The broad spectrum of "technology" has improved things for everyone, it just hasnt overthrown the existing structures. Think of stuff like medical, communications etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> The broad spectrum of "technology" has improved things for everyone, it just hasnt overthrown the existing structures. Think of stuff like medical, communications etc.


...cluster bombs... ...drones...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> The broad spectrum of "technology" has improved things for everyone, it just hasnt overthrown the existing structures. Think of stuff like medical, communications etc.


we were told that all this technology meant that we'd not need to do so much work. but that's not been the case, has it?


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

killer b said:


> what butch and others were saying upthread about communities where people all work & live in the same place rang true to me is all. and the reasons why there are less and less such communities is not purely down to social forces. in times gone by, working and living in the same community wasn't a choice, it was a necessity. now, thanks to motorised transport, i can work in a place where i have no connection to the people i work with other than the workplace itself. i spend my evenings wasting time posting bollocks to you dickheads instead of getting to know my neighbours and smashing the state with them (and presumably they do something similar). there's plenty more, but i'm sure you get the idea.


 
You choosing to spend your time posting on urban is a choice, it doesn't exclude you from getting to know your neighbors at all. Sure there have been changes but if you take that thinking to the extreme, we should never have bothered progressing past subsistence farming.


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> we were told that all this technology meant that we'd not need to do so much work. but that's not been the case, has it?


 
Who told you that? The only claims I can recall seeing is that it would increase productivity, which in a general sense it has.


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> ...cluster bombs... ...drones...


 
Funnily enough its the money pumped into defense related research that has produced some of the greatest advances, granted there is a lot of defense related work thats unsavory. But thats life, innit.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> You choosing to spend your time posting on urban is a choice, it doesn't exclude you from getting to know your neighbors at all. Sure there have been changes but if you take that thinking to the extreme, we should never have bothered progressing past subsistence farming.


 
i know. and their choice to do whatever it is that distracts them of an evening. i don't think that takes anything away from the point i was making though does it?


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 4, 2012)

where to said:


> SU best thing for the west, worst thing for the russians. they didn't push their luck in case we switched. now there is no counter balance.


 

The USSR wasn't the worst thing for the Russians after it settled down and gradually stagnated. Things got a lot worse for the vast majority when the Communists voluntarily relinquished power/switched sides. What was worse for a Chechen, for instance- life in the USSR or life under the falling Russian bombs and amidst the murderous bandits on the ground on both sides? What was better for the working class Russian conscript sent to Chechnya (only one of several places where similar conflicts inevitably arose in the absence of the Soviet state) as good, old-fashioned cannon fodder-that or 'the good old days of stagnation' as they afterwards became ironically known?

There is something in what you're saying about the USSR being a brake on what the capitalists in the West could do, but nobody who mattered in the ruling elites of most Western states genuinely believed that it was possible that their people would adopt a Soviet-style system or that the Soviet Union, having enough on its plate keeping the sattelites it already had in line, wanted to take over Western Europe (and genuine workers' revolution, meanwhile, was correctly ruled out entirely.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> Who told you that? The only claims I can recall seeing is that it would increase productivity, which in a general sense it has.


it's been a constant theme accompanying the introduction of new technology eg the computer, the hoover etc - all these 'labour-saving' devices. rather than sharing out the available work and having eg 20 hour weeks, a lot of people have a lot of work and a lot of people have fuck all work with some people falling in the middle.


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

killer b said:


> i don't think that takes anything away from the point i was making though does it?


 
To be honest, I'm a bit unclear what *exactly* your point is.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2012)

oh well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> Funnily enough its the money pumped into defense related research that has produced some of the greatest advances, granted there is a lot of defense related work thats unsavory. But thats life, innit.


by 'defense' i take it you in fact mean 'war', things like vietnam.


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> by 'defense' i take it you in fact mean 'war', things like vietnam.


 
Well war is the act perpetrated by "defense" or "military". Its not an entity in itself that carries out research.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> The broad spectrum of "technology" has improved things for everyone, it just hasnt overthrown the existing structures. Think of stuff like medical, communications etc.


 
I think that's a subjective viewpoint bbf

Communications fine .. the internet etc

Medical .. if you can afford it I think

The one leveller in life is a condition that kills you but what's more important is the treatment you receive while that's going on .. and as per that can only be bought

Science aint all that imo


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> Well war is the act perpetrated by "defense" or "military". Its not an entity in itself that carries out research.


are you a septic?

btw, could you explain how something like vietnam is in any way 'defense' for the united states?


----------



## camouflage (Jul 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> we were told that all this technology meant that we'd not need to do so much work. but that's not been the case, has it?


 
who told you that? you don't want to pay attention to every idiot thing some toothy twat on teevee comes out with.


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

rorymac said:


> Medical .. if you can afford it I think


 
I've never been asked for money from the NHS. Tbh, the UK (well, and Australia) are the best national healthcare systems I've seen.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

camouflage said:


> who told you that? you don't want to pay attention to every idiot things some toothy twat on teevee comes out with.


are you grit in disguise?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> I've never been asked for money from the NHS.


you what?


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> are you a septic?
> 
> btw, could you explain how something like vietnam is in any way 'defense' for the united states?


 
Dont take the word so literally, they can have variable meanings in context. Which is why I put them in quotes, the UK has a ministry of defense, why are you talking about USA?


----------



## camouflage (Jul 4, 2012)

rorymac said:


> Science aint all that imo


 

ffs, science is a method of investigation, end-of.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> Dont take the word so literally, they can have variable meanings in context. Which is why I put them in quotes, the UK has a ministry of defense, why are you talking about USA?


because it seems you can't spell defence.

as for the uk having a ministry of *defence*, i thought everyone knew that was purely for propaganda purposes, that having a ministry of war, though more honest, was no longer suitable for pr reasons.


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you what?


 
All care I've received from the NHS has been free, in a direct sense. Of course my taxes pay for it.


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> because it seems you can't spell defence.


 
US spell checker, did you really have such trouble with it? And what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

What a fucking tangent.

e2a: just saw your edit, whatever the PR implications the word is still applicable in the context.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> I've never been asked for money from the NHS. Tbh, the UK (well, and Australia) are the best national healthcare systems I've seen.


 

Maybe .. but you'd have to see the difference when you PAY for private care .. no one is going to save you from a killer disease tbf


----------



## rorymac (Jul 4, 2012)

camouflage said:


> ffs, science is a method of investigation, end-of.


 
It is and it isn't tbf .. it is bought and used as a commodity


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> US spell checker, did you really have such trouble with it? And what the fuck does that have to do with anything?
> 
> What a fucking tangent.


it's not entirely a tangent. if you post in septic then you've got to expect people to wonder if you are a septic. now i know you're just too stupid to set a uk english spellchecker i see i can reasonably regard your posts as the product of a weak mind.


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it's not a tangent. if you post in septic then you've got to expect people to wonder if you are a septic. now i know you're just too stupid to set a uk english spellchecker i see i can reasonably regard your posts as the product of a weak mind.


 
LOL 

Jesus you grasp at straws quick, I expected more of you tbh. Fuck knows why. 

Tell us more about this war that carries out research.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> All care I've received from the NHS has been free, in a direct sense. Of course my taxes pay for it.


yes. but you said "I've never been asked for money from the NHS." who would have asked you for money from the nhs?


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. but you said "I've never been asked for money from the NHS." who would have asked you for money from the nhs?


 
Having lived in a couple of countries that require upfront payment for the provision of public medical care, I made the statement to demonstrate to rorymac that money wasnt required, in the UK at least, to benefit from medical technology.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> Tell us more about this war that carries out research.


what war's that then


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> Having lived in a couple of countries that require upfront payment for the provision of public medical care, I made the statement to demonstrate to rorymac that money wasnt required, in the UK at least, to benefit from medical technology.


no, who do you think would ask you for money from the national health service. not post up some auld shite.


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> no, who do you think would ask you for money from the national health service. not post up some auld shite.


 
The GP/administrator at the hospital/whatever.

Costs 60 euro to see a GP in Ireland.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> The GP/administrator at the hospital/whatever.
> 
> Costs 60 euro to see a GP in Ireland.


you're talking about money FROM YOU to see a dr / access medical services.

but you spoke above about being asked for money FROM THE NHS. which is of course a different thing.

who would ask you for money from the national health service, not who from the nhs would ask you for money.


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you're talking about money FROM YOU to see a dr / access medical services.
> 
> but you spoke above about being asked for money FROM THE NHS. which is of course a different thing.
> 
> who would ask you for money from the national health service, not who from the nhs would ask you for money.


 
Does a missing comma really throw you off that much? Its been clarified several times in subsequent posts. You were amusing there for a few minutes but its just gone dull again 

pity.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> Does a missing comma really throw you off that much? Its been clarified several times in subsequent posts. You were amusing there for a few minutes but its just gone dull again
> 
> pity.


ok. where in this quote should there be a comma?





> I've never been asked for money from the NHS.


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> ok. where in this quote should there be a comma?


 
Ok ok, I should have typed "by" instead of from. Congratulations you scored a point, you can sleep soundly now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

grit said:


> Ok ok, I should have typed "by" instead of from. Congratulations you scored a point, you can sleep soundly now.


you're all a muddle tonight.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 4, 2012)

interesting callinicos article, "the second coming of the radical left",

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=819&issue=135


----------



## grit (Jul 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you're all a muddle tonight.


 
Nearly as bad as thinking that war is an entity and not an act 

So after all that pointless bollocks about semantics, you were saying that no good comes from defen*c*e research? Or did I misunderstand, its late and I'm tired.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2012)

discokermit said:


> interesting callinicos article, "the second coming of the radical left",
> 
> http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=819&issue=135


ta. i'll have a look at that tomorrow.


----------



## elbows (Jul 5, 2012)

grit said:


> Funnily enough its the money pumped into defense related research that has produced some of the greatest advances, granted there is a lot of defense related work thats unsavory. But thats life, innit.


 
'Thats life' is a crap excuse. There is no unshakeable barrier that prevents a society from choosing to fund technological innovation where the initial application of the technology is nothing to do with war.  That war has been a driving factor in such developments for ages does not mean it always has to be that way.


----------



## elbows (Jul 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it's been a constant theme accompanying the introduction of new technology eg the computer, the hoover etc - all these 'labour-saving' devices. rather than sharing out the available work and having eg 20 hour weeks, a lot of people have a lot of work and a lot of people have fuck all work with some people falling in the middle.


 
Im not sure its quite that straightforward. I certainly feel that this theme has not been as prevalent in my lifetime (born 1975) as it may have been in several generations prior. The emphasis seems to have shifted more towards making certain tasks less of a physical burden, or making consumption of various forms cheaper or 'sexier' rather than reducing the working week. And when I look for times & places where these themes were loud and blatant, such as when household electricity & electrical appliances, department stores & mass production of these goods at 'affordable' prices were being given the hard sell in the inter-war period, again it seemed well focussed on the freedom to consume rather than freedom from working many hours, although Im not denying that theme also existed. These days I can't remember the last time I saw politicians trying to woo people with talk of giving people more leisure time. Instead I have ringing in my ears the sound of Paul Merton complaining some years back about why people haven't got the jetpacks they were promised, which I assume harks back to the space-race era of the cold war and the bollocks that was spouted in the name of progress and beating the commies, especially in US sci-fi and comics, but also leaking into the newsreels selling dreams.

The term luddite also seems to have cobwebs these days, even though that genie came out of the bottle again with factory robots & computers, and despite the present state of employment levels. Im not sure if anybody can pinpoint when this angle seemed to fall off the radar, in my mind it hasn't got a proper airing since the 1980's. The emphasis which played to peoples genuine and reasonable employment insecurities has shifted more towards competition from other nations, outsourcing, immigration etc, other humans being the threat to employment rather than technology, although technology sometimes helped enable a few of those things.


----------



## elbows (Jul 5, 2012)

discokermit said:


> interesting callinicos article, "the second coming of the radical left",
> 
> http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=819&issue=135


 
Very good read, thanks for posting this.

Those here who have convinced themselves that the left somehow permanently died just because of how dominant neoliberalism became, the collapse of the soviet union, the shoddy state of the left in the uk or anything else, ought to read it. But its a bit long and focussed on where the main action is so far (not the UK) and it mentions George Galloway so it may not succeed in shaking them from their tired assumptions. Thats no excuse though, for when I predicted some years ago that the full political spectrum would be reawakened by the prolonged financial catastrophe I was hardly employing special powers of thought, prediction or some great grasp of history. You don't need to have read a single word of Marx to predict that apathy, crap television, strong weed and xbox's are not going to prevent there being quite the struggle if economic conditions become very bad for a long period of time.


----------



## miktheword (Jul 5, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/04/the-return-of-marxism

where to place this link?....on the Queen /Maguiness derail on Marxism?....this one?..Owen Jones thread?....a new one?...some more regular posters will surely find a suitable title for a new thread...
***kin Guardian!..just off for 6 days to Strabane, internetless; see this article at this hour which manages to include superficial discussion of relevance of Marxism today, advertises marxism 2012 for SWP, 'use value and exchange value along with 'poster boy of the left, Owen Jones!'


----------



## elbows (Jul 5, 2012)

That article is quite funny on a number of different levels.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 5, 2012)

elbows said:


> You don't need to have read a single word of Marx to predict that apathy, crap television, strong weed and xbox's are not going to prevent there being quite the struggle if economic conditions become very bad for a long period of time.


 
Whether pursuing the electoral or revolutionary road the message needs to be simpler and not gilded with identity politics bullshit, dead bearded Prussians, climate change science fiction and lachrymose angst over the suffering of people in far away countries of which we know little.

WE WILL TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM PEOPLE WHO AREN'T LIKE YOU AND GIVE IT YOU. FOR NOTHING.

That's the message that will cause the pallid, acne strewn faces of Generation Xbox to light up and inpsire them to become the porte-drapeaux of The New Left.


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

elbows said:


> 'Thats life' is a crap excuse. There is no unshakeable barrier that prevents a society from choosing to fund technological innovation where the initial application of the technology is nothing to do with war. That war has been a driving factor in such developments for ages does not mean it always has to be that way.


 
Its not an excuse, its an observation.


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

elbows said:


> You don't need to have read a single word of Marx to predict that apathy, crap television, strong weed and xbox's are not going to prevent there being quite the struggle if economic conditions become very bad for a long period of time.


 
Seems to be doing an excellent job of it so far tbh.


----------



## camouflage (Jul 5, 2012)

rorymac said:


> It is and it isn't tbf .. it is bought and used as a commodity


 
 erm... are you talking about Technology and gadgets etc, or alluding to the ways in which scientific research is funded?

I guess either way that's another thread entirely, but am curious what you mean.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

camouflage said:


> erm... are you talking about Technology and gadgets etc, or alluding to the ways in which scientific research is funded?
> 
> I guess either way that's another thread entirely, but am curious what you mean.


Well scientific skills and capabilities - whether embedded  in individuals, in projects or in hard/software etc - are produced to be sold are they not?


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Well scientific skills and capabilities - whether embedded in individuals, in projects or in hard/software etc - are produced to be sold are they not?


 
Plenty of academic research is produced without the intention of selling it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

And?


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> And?


 
Its an answer to your question, I presumed you had a point to follow up with? Obviously not.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

Was your answer yes, scientific skills and capabilities - whether embedded  in individuals, in projects or in hard/software etc - are produced to be sold?


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Was your answer yes, scientific skills and capabilities - whether embedded in individuals, in projects or in hard/software etc - are produced to be sold?


 
I dont have the patience to spoon feed you this morning butchers, sorry.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

grit said:
			
		

> I dont have the patience to spoon feed you this morning butchers, sorry.


You don't have the patience to say whether you answered yes or no? I think you don't actually know how or even _if_ you answered.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 5, 2012)

Patience is a mute point. The onslaught against the left over the last thirty years has been unrelenting. It will take some time to re-build and even then the forces ranged against it are immense and the left will face many set-backs. Some re-thinking is also needed in the battles to come, as they will.


----------



## camouflage (Jul 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Well scientific skills and capabilities - whether embedded in individuals, in projects or in hard/software etc - are produced to be sold are they not?


 
Not necessarily. It's not like we only have Science because of Capitalism. If we lived in the Worldwide State of the New Communist Man I'm fairly sure there'd still be scientific research. Anyway there's more to human curiosity and investigation of the world around us than the likes of DARPA, Bell Labs or GlaxoSmithKlineBeechams or whatevr.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

camouflage said:


> Not necessarily. It's not like we only have Science because of Capitalism. If we lived in the Worldwide State of the New Communist Man I'm fairly sure there'd still be scientific research. There's more to human curiosity than DARPA, Bell Labs or Xerox Parc.


No one said _necessarily_. Does what i outlined happen today or not? It's that simple.

And please, don't equate science in the contemporary capitalist world with a pure spirit of disinterested inquiry.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 5, 2012)

Oh and many of the the older lefty's are time-serving for their pensions, or already out of the race. It's down to a new younger generation now.


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Patience is a mute point.


----------



## camouflage (Jul 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No one said _necessarily_. Does what i outlined happen today or not? It's that simple.
> 
> And please, don't equate science in the contemporary capitalist world with a pure spirit of disinterested inquiry.


 
I find your previous question dumb and pointless considering the above response.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

camouflage said:


> I find your previous question dumb and pointless considering the above response.


You asked how science is a commodity today - i gave you some examples and asked if you agreed. What's the problem? Why is answering your question dumb and pointless. I can see how it might be from my perspective, but from yours?


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

camouflage said:


> I find your previous question dumb and pointless considering the above response.


 
You are now playing butchers apron bingo, by my score card you need one more "vague open ended irrelevant question" to get the full row.

Good luck.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

grit said:


> You are now playing butchers apron bingo, by my score card you need one more "vague open ended irrelevant question" to get the full row.
> 
> Good luck.


Have you worked up the patience to say yes or no yet?


----------



## camouflage (Jul 5, 2012)

well, I guess if only butchers is left it means the thread has become no longer viable.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

Of course, you could try adding some content and not sulking.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

grit said:


> Dont forget about the bloody middle class!


 
We won't.

Don't worry, you'll get yours.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Of course. The people who helped to give the world fascism.


 
And the nuclear family.

Actually, I suppose you could describe the nuclear family as "fascism in one household".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

grit said:


> The broad spectrum of "technology" has improved things for everyone, it just hasnt overthrown the existing structures. Think of stuff like medical, communications etc.


 
I think you're missing the point that some of the blessings of technology are also curses, such as 24/7 contactability almost anywhere in the world.
As for overthrowing existing structures, here's a question to ponder: Given the base technologies, why have our ICTs evolved in the form they have, using the protocols they do?


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think you're missing the point that some of the blessings of technology are also curses, such as 24/7 contactability almost anywhere in the world.
> As for overthrowing existing structures, here's a question to ponder: Given the base technologies, why have our ICTs evolved in the form they have, using the protocols they do?


 
Breaking news: nothing is perfect! Water is wet, fire is hot, more at 11!

Do you really want to get into a in depth technical discussion that you probably wont understand regarding TCP/IP and its accompanying transport layer technologies?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

grit said:


> Dont take the word so literally, they can have variable meanings in context. Which is why I put them in quotes, the UK has a ministry of defense, why are you talking about USA?


 
Because you're spelling "defence" in the American manner, rather than properly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

grit said:


> Breaking news: nothing is perfect! Water is wet, fire is hot, more at 11!


 
Thank you for that statement of the obvious.



> Do you really want to get into a in depth technical discussion that you probably wont understand regarding TCP/IP and its accompanying transport layer technologies?


 
Why would I need to get into one, unless you're looking to score points after making yourself look silly elsewhere, Mr. NOMIS?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> are you grit in disguise?


 
A case of "you're grit, and you know you are"?


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thank you for that statement of the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I need to get into one, unless you're looking to score points after making yourself look silly elsewhere, Mr. NOMIS?


 
It seemed appropriate to mock your obvious statement with another extreme one

Then why are you asking questions you have no interest to understand in the answer to? 

I realised after posting the nomis bit, that to conclusively show how much utter fucking bollocks you are talking, it would give too many clues to my identity, I still think it was the correct decision


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

camouflage said:


> ffs, science is a method of investigation, end-of.


 
Unfortunately not true. It's also a cultural practice in many different cultures, and can have all the foibles of other cultural practices, including irrational prejudices.
And, to be fair, "method of investigation" is a small (though important) part of science. Science is also about the knowledge that investigation reveals, and about how we choose to understand and to utilise that knowledge.


----------



## elbows (Jul 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> As for overthrowing existing structures, here's a question to ponder: Given the base technologies, why have our ICTs evolved in the form they have, using the protocols they do?


 
Can you expand on this question a bit. I've no intention of doing a grit and using technical arrogance or self-identification concerns to dodge the question, but rather than waffle I'd like to know what you are getting at before I start.


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

elbows said:


> Can you expand on this question a bit. I've no intention of doing a grit and using technical arrogance or self-identification concerns to dodge the question, but rather than waffle I'd like to know what you are getting at before I start.


 
He already confirmed my suspicion that he has no fucking interest in the answer. Unfortunately VP posts dont contribute to butchers bingo


----------



## camouflage (Jul 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think you're missing the point that some of the blessings of technology are also curses, such as 24/7 contactability almost anywhere in the world.
> As for overthrowing existing structures, here's a question to ponder: Given the base technologies, why have our ICTs evolved in the form they have, using the protocols they do?


 
I thoroughly agree that technology is an expression of a cultures value system.

If we value speed; therefore the engine. But then the question might be _why_ do we value speed?

It's interesting to me anyway that the introduction of some technological methods (the details of which I don't recall) into a South American subsistance farming community did not result as expected in the women of the village producing more of whatever it was that they were using the technique to produce, but rather resulted in them taking more leisure time after having produced the same amount of stuff but more quickly.

One of the 'white man from city' had the opinion that this was because the women of that community were not sufficiently capitalistic in their outlook to pursue greater profits by the application of the newly introduced technology to increase volume of output overall. I considered that incorrect, and felt the women were merely profit-taking but not in the form of currency. They were skipping over all that kind of thing to the ultimately valued end-product; quality time with family and friends.

Or maybe they were taking the profits and investing them in the development of their social relations and psychological well-being. I doubt they saw it that way though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

grit said:


> It seemed appropriate to mock your obvious statement with another extreme one


 
Of course it did.



> Then why are you asking questions you have no interest to understand in the answer to?


 
Because I'm making a rhetorical point, you twat. Most of our common-use ICTs have evolved in forms that (through various innovations) make them amenable to being used as tools of social control, mostly through surveillance possibilities.

I realised after posting the nomis bit, that to conclusively show how much utter fucking bollocks you are talking, it would give too many clues to my identity, I still think it was the correct decision [/quote]

So why not answer BA's question, the one about how many actual files ( actual files, with all the inserts, notations etc that accrue during detention, not templates or blank print-outs) you perused or handled? That wouldn't reveal your identity, would it?


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course it did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
So why not answer BA's question, the one about how many actual files ( actual files, with all the inserts, notations etc that accrue during detention, not templates or blank print-outs) you perused or handled? That wouldn't reveal your identity, would it?[/quote]

All of them, last count is between 83k-84k records.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

elbows said:


> Can you expand on this question a bit. I've no intention of doing a grit and using technical arrogance or self-identification concerns to dodge the question, but rather than waffle I'd like to know what you are getting at before I start.


 
Okay, no problem. If we take ICTs that have developed over the last 30-40 years, what they have in common is that they're amenable to  being used for social control, either as tools of immediate surveillance (GPS on mobiles being the most obvious one) or as easily-penetrated forms of communication (yes, I know that there are encryption techniques, but unless you're a fan of steganography, encryption stands out). Given that other technologies have been possible, why did the ones that are "in play" for the general public, *become* the "top dog"? Is it purely because they were/are the best tool for the job, or because they're "good enough", but can also serve an agenda that makes "overthrowing existing structures" fundamentally more difficult. After all, is it in the manufacturer's interest for technology to destabilise "the market" any more than it would be in an individual state's interest to have technologies less amenable to penetration in the hands of anyone except themselves?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

camouflage said:


> I thoroughly agree that technology is an expression of a cultures value system.
> 
> If we value speed; therefore the engine. But then the question might be _why_ do we value speed?
> 
> ...


There is no wage-relation here, there is no money. That's what's required - for it to be specified for rents, taxes, duties, items you can't produce for yourself and so to be paid for only in money. See Michael Buroway on how the planned monetisation  of of domestic economies by the colonial powers in Africa produced local capitalist economies that were then integrated into national and international capital. And you could compare that with current 'first world' finacialisation of reproduction and so on.


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Okay, no problem. If we take ICTs that have developed over the last 30-40 years, what they have in common is that they're amenable to being used for social control, either as tools of immediate surveillance (GPS on mobiles being the most obvious one) or as easily-penetrated forms of communication (yes, I know that there are encryption techniques, but unless you're a fan of steganography, encryption stands out). Given that other technologies have been possible, why did the ones that are "in play" for the general public, *become* the "top dog"? Is it purely because they were/are the best tool for the job, or because they're "good enough", but can also serve an agenda that makes "overthrowing existing structures" fundamentally more difficult. After all, is it in the manufacturer's interest for technology to destabilise "the market" any more than it would be in an individual state's interest to have technologies less amenable to penetration in the hands of anyone except themselves?


 
I dont think you know what rhetorical means but anyway I'll bite. There is a term regularly used in IT to explain why things are the way they are, "historical reasons". TCP/IP, what basically drives the internet, was introduced in the 70s and is perfectly adequate for the job. It was choosen purely for its technical capabilities. The issue is that once a standard is introduced and has widespread adoption, it has to stick as the work to replace it is like doing open heart surgery on every single device that communicates online. 

No real considerations were given to political issues with the choice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

grit said:


> So why not answer BA's question, the one about how many actual files ( actual files, with all the inserts, notations etc that accrue during detention, not templates or blank print-outs) you perused or handled? That wouldn't reveal your identity, would it?


 
All of them, last count is between 83k-84k records.[/quote]

No, not computer files, hard copy. The files every security department in every prison keep for all inmates. Those lovely 1920s-style buff folders. The ones that still have to be kept and maintained despite HMPS possessing such a wonderful "offender management" system.

You haven't seen a single one, have you? 

BTW, 84,000 means just the "live" files, then, so far.


----------



## treelover (Jul 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> ta. i'll have a look at that tomorrow.


 
Callinicos is always predicting new lefts, social movements, etc, thats the SWP reason for existence, always something on the horizon, there is certainly nothing sighted on the Uk's...


----------



## treelover (Jul 5, 2012)

miktheword said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/04/the-return-of-marxism
> 
> where to place this link?....on the Queen /Maguiness derail on Marxism?....this one?..Owen Jones thread?....a new one?...some more regular posters will surely find a suitable title for a new thread...
> ***kin Guardian!..just off for 6 days to Strabane, internetless; see this article at this hour which manages to include superficial discussion of relevance of Marxism today, advertises marxism 2012 for SWP, 'use value and exchange value along with 'poster boy of the left, Owen Jones!'


 

Again, they did this a couple of years ago, when the Communist Manifesto was printed in a new size and sold 'well'...


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> All of them, last count is between 83k-84k records.


 
No, not computer files, hard copy. The files every security department in every prison keep for all inmates. Those lovely 1920s-style buff folders. The ones that still have to be kept and maintained despite HMPS possessing such a wonderful "offender management" system.

You haven't seen a single one, have you? 

BTW, 84,000 means just the "live" files, then, so far.[/quote]

No I havnt seen any hard files, but that doesn't matter because they are not relevant to determining the large scale view of political views of prisoners, and whats the point of using old data of people no longer in custody? Things change.

This was originally brought up because what was being discussed was someones ability to make such a comment on the prison population. I dont have to tell you how fucking bad HMPS record keeping is in hard copy.

So to have a large dataset on the political views of a large amount of prisoners, you need to use the live records which are computerised and dont store political data.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

I would suggest that anyone seriously interested in the connection between science and social relations has a read of these two important texts by Raniero Panzieri:

The Capitalist Use of Machinery


Surplus value and planning


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

grit said:


> I dont think you know what rhetorical means but anyway I'll bite. There is a term regularly used in IT to explain why things are the way they are, "historical reasons". TCP/IP, what basically drives the internet, was introduced in the 70s and is perfectly adequate for the job. It was choosen purely for its technical capabilities. The issue is that once a standard is introduced and has widespread adoption, it has to stick as the work to replace it is like doing open heart surgery on every single device that communicates online.
> 
> No real considerations were given to political issues with the choice.


 
Which accounts for internet data packets. Great, and the hardware? Are there historical reasons why that is "porous"?

What about cellphone technologies or sat-phone technologies?


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are there historical reasons why that is "porous"?
> 
> What about cellphone technologies or sat-phone technologies?


 
You need to clarify what exactly you are referring to when using the word porous.

What about cellphone and sat phone technologies?


----------



## treelover (Jul 5, 2012)

btw, I would rather have Owen Jones and his politics over the faux student triumphalist politics of the SWP, that article is quite poor..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

grit said:


> No I havnt seen any hard files, but that doesn't matter because they are not relevant to determining the large scale view of political views of prisoners...


 
Except that the sorts of relevant "intelligence" recorded in individual files usually included political inclination.



> ...and whats the point of using old data of people no longer in custody? Things change.


 
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand history, which isn't a judgement on you, so much as a judgement on the people who commissioned the system. "Old data" is handy. It gives you the ability to construct a baseline against which to measure your current data. It also gives you a far greater ability to plot trends.



> This was originally brought up because what was being discussed was someones ability to make such a comment on the prison population. I dont have to tell you how fucking bad HMPS record keeping is in hard copy.


 
I never saw any problems at individual establishments with record keeping. Where HMPS fell down was in transport and central storage, which had two standards: Crap and Utterly Shite.



> So to have a large dataset on the political views of a large amount of prisoners, you need to use the live records which are computerised and dont store political data.


 
With the current system, yes.
Given that Ms. Dickson-Wright stopped practicing at the Bar some time in the early 1990s, though, your system wouldn't have been in-play.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

grit said:


> You need to clarify what exactly you are referring to when using the word porous.


 
Porous - amenable to being messed with, less secure than it might be.



> What about cellphone and sat phone technologies?


 
Why are they amenable to being messed with, less secure than they might be? Who benefits from that?


----------



## elbows (Jul 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Okay, no problem. If we take ICTs that have developed over the last 30-40 years, what they have in common is that they're amenable to being used for social control, either as tools of immediate surveillance (GPS on mobiles being the most obvious one) or as easily-penetrated forms of communication (yes, I know that there are encryption techniques, but unless you're a fan of steganography, encryption stands out). Given that other technologies have been possible, why did the ones that are "in play" for the general public, *become* the "top dog"? Is it purely because they were/are the best tool for the job, or because they're "good enough", but can also serve an agenda that makes "overthrowing existing structures" fundamentally more difficult. After all, is it in the manufacturer's interest for technology to destabilise "the market" any more than it would be in an individual state's interest to have technologies less amenable to penetration in the hands of anyone except themselves?


 
Thanks for the clarification, I thought that was probably what you were getting at.

When it comes to the business aspect, there are actually a number of areas where the quest for profit drives businesses to disrupt the existing way of doing things. Obviously this waxes and wanes and doesn't happen in every sector, but it shouldn't be excluded from the picture.

As for technological evolution and security, again what you are saying is a good part of the picture, but overstated. It is hard to overstate the challenges of developing technology that is inherently secure and anonymising. It can be done but its not simply a question of there being a strong will to avoid this, but also a lack of motivation and demand for the alternatives to be developed. Just look at the trouble states have in ensuring their military networks are completely impenetrable by enemies. And no matter how good the technology, humans are a consistent weak link.

Certainly governments have a keen interest in control, and the scale of business that we see tends to favour large, centralised stuff, which will have inherent weaknesses or things ripe for exploitation or control by the very nature of the centralisation.

However if you look at the internet we see a rather large example of how the evolution of things has unintended consequences that states either failed to anticipate or were powerless to prevent. Most dramatically the internet has opened up new avenues by which foreign powers may snoop, meddle and disrupt. And from the business side, see what challenges it has created in the realms of intellectual property, profit from distribution, etc.

Anywy there is plenty else I could say but I don't want to make this post obscenely long. I'l just add that in some ways it may be better for people to be aware that their communications are insecure than let their guard down under an alternative setup which features powerful illusion that there is real security and anonymity. Even without technology the weak human links are still present, and 'safety in numbers'/ reliance on the 'acceptable norms' of the day/the public backlash against draconian action may be a safer bet than relying simply on the characteristics and myths of the network.


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Porous - amenable to being messed with, less secure than it might be.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they amenable to being messed with, less secure than they might be? Who benefits from that?


 
If anything the hardware on a design level is more secure. The core technologies themselves are robust, its the services that people interact with where there might be debate. Think twitter handing over user information when requested by governments etc. However nothing is stopping an independent using the same core technology to build a service that would resist such requests.

GSM is pretty insecure in a lot of ways, for about a grand I can build something the size of a suitcase and leave it in a public area. It would mimic a mobile phone mast and intercept communications. However that goes both ways, the vulnerability is a double edged sword, yes the government or whatever can use it to spy, but so can anyone else with the knowledge.

Thats the great thing about technology in some ways, the benefits and drawbacks affect all users. Its completely politically agnostic.


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except that the sorts of relevant "intelligence" recorded in individual files usually included political inclination.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Thats all fine, my only interest in this part of the discussion is that its incorrect for *anyone *to claim that they have a overview of the political views of the HMPS prison population. You said it yourself any of that data is stored in hard copy at each indiviudal establishment, they are essentially individual silos. I suppose in theory you could have someone flick through every single hard copy report and record if there are any scribbles of "votes tory" but that approach would have massive holes when trying to establish its validity, not to mention its completely infeasible..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

grit said:


> Thats all fine, my only interest in this part of the discussion is that its incorrect for *anyone *to claim that they have a overview of the political views of the HMPS prison population. You said it yourself any of that data is stored in hard copy at each indiviudal establishment, they are essentially individual silos. I suppose in theory you could have someone flick through every single hard copy report and record if there are any scribbles of "votes tory" but that approach would have massive holes when trying to establish its validity, not to mention its completely infeasible..


 
Well, as I said earlier, I'm not convinced she said "Tory", but rather "conservative", because that does reflect the social attitudes of a majority of repeat offenders who've participated in research.


----------



## grit (Jul 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, as I said earlier, I'm not convinced she said "Tory", but rather "conservative", because that does reflect the social attitudes of a majority of repeat offenders who've participated in research.


 
Fair enough, I'm not too concerned with the semantics of it. Point is, its still not credible for anyone to make blanket statements with such data. Thats all.


----------



## treelover (Jul 5, 2012)

Btw, is anyone from Proletarian Democracy going to be leafleting Marxism?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2012)

treelover said:


> Callinicos is always predicting new lefts, social movements, etc, thats the SWP reason for existence, always something on the horizon, there is certainly nothing sighted on the Uk's...


Which part of 'know thine enemy' is troubling you?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 5, 2012)

treelover said:


> Btw, is anyone from Proletarian Democracy going to be leafleting Marxism?


 
Morrisons yes Marxism perhaps


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 5, 2012)

Store 055?


----------



## chilango (Jul 5, 2012)

Regardless of a "left resurgence"....

If/when there is some sort of revolutionary movement(s), it will come in forms we might not recognise, employ tactics we might not understand, and it sure as hell won't move in a manner that most of us here will predict.

That's how it always been, is now, and will be in the future.

Amen.


----------



## chilango (Jul 5, 2012)

treelover said:


> Btw, is anyone from Proletarian Democracy going to be leafleting Marxism?



They are supposed to be. First big Girder paper sale innit.


----------



## elbows (Jul 5, 2012)

Im not sure about that, maybe a bit but I doubt it will be completely unrecognisable. 

A safer bet is that some fuckers will deride it as pointless and hopeless, especially looking at what happened on some of the Arab Spring threads when the revolutionary forces failed to follow the entrenched dogma of some posters to the letter.


----------



## camouflage (Jul 5, 2012)

chilango said:


> Regardless of a "left resurgence"....
> 
> If/when there is some sort of revolutionary movement(s), it will come in forms we might not recognise, employ tactics we might not understand, and it sure as hell won't move in a manner that most of us here will predict.
> 
> ...


 
It won't be unrecognisable as it's the same issues as always; Poverty and Powerlessness.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

Revolutionary movements also come from relative wealth and power.


----------



## elbows (Jul 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Revolutionary movements also come from relative wealth and power.


 
Yep, and thats a reason not to get too carried away with the whole 'people will do something when they've got nothing left to lose' thing - its often when they fear they have everything to lose that the alternative seems worth the risk.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

I'd also say it's one of the reasons that people might not recognise them. I think here especially  of Italy in the 60s and 70s.


----------



## elbows (Jul 5, 2012)

I have giant holes in my knowledge about such things. Is it possible to offer a brief explanation?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

elbows said:


> I have giant holes in my knowledge about such things. Is it possible to offer a brief explanation?


Of the things least suited to brief explanation, this is amongst them!  I was thinking of doing a thread about this before the weekend anyway, given the relevance to today, so will do that tmw.


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 5, 2012)

chilango said:


> Regardless of a "left resurgence"....
> 
> If/when there is some sort of revolutionary movement(s), it will come in forms we might not recognise, employ tactics we might not understand, and it sure as hell won't move in a manner that most of us here will predict.
> 
> ...


 
Isn't this a roundabout way of just saying, 'Summat's bound to turn up eventually?'


----------



## elbows (Jul 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Of the things least suited to brief explanation, this is amongst them!  I was thinking of doing a thread about this before the weekend anyway, given the relevance to today, so will do that tmw.


 
Cheers. Please also explain Marx in a single tweet


----------



## chilango (Jul 5, 2012)

LLETSA said:


> Isn't this a roundabout way of just saying, 'Summat's bound to turn up eventually?'



Yup.

...and it will. That's how these things work.


----------



## camouflage (Jul 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I'd also say it's one of the reasons that people might not recognise them. I think here especially of Italy in the 60s and 70s.


 
Operation Gladio?

edited: No, never mind, Operation Gladio was something else entirely.

The Red Brigades then...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

No. Not operation gladio. Rather a social movement directly based on peoples needs that lasted for 10+ years on a mass level and that took back things like electricity, health, communication, work and so on.


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 5, 2012)

chilango said:


> Yup.
> 
> ...and it will. That's how these things work.


 


And they've 'worked' in the past in what way, these revolutionary movements (as opposed to the many movements which have had limited success or have utterly failed)?


----------



## chilango (Jul 5, 2012)

LLETSA said:


> And they've 'worked' in the past in what way, these revolutionary movements (as opposed to the many movements which have had limited success or have utterly failed)?



I don't mean "they've worked". I mean societies/economies/paradigms/civilisations change and evolve and always, always spawn some sort of revolution. That revolution, however, might bear no semblance to what 20th c British leftists envisage when they talk about "revolution". That's kinda my point.


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 5, 2012)

chilango said:


> I don't mean "they've worked". I mean societies/economies/paradigms/civilisations change and evolve and always, always spawn some sort of revolution. That revolution, however, might bear no semblance to what 20th c British leftists envisage when they talk about "revolution". That's kinda my point.


 


If it bears no resemblence to what British leftists (taking into account everything from left social democracy through vanguardism to anarcho-communism and notions of working class spontaneity) envisaged, which was little different in essence to what leftists everywhere else envisaged, it won't be revolutionary socialism/communism/workers' self-organisation, will it?

The unwillingness to properly discuss the current malaise, where opposition to capitalism has been reduced to mere protest without any possibility of power, leads some people towards a kind of mysticism: somehow, from somewhere, salvation will materialise-in the meantime don't ask questions.


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 5, 2012)

In fact, couldn't it be said that the kind of new movements you're talking about are already emerging? (Occupy, for one thing, bears little resemblence to anything from the 20th century and is arguably outside any left/anarchist tradition.) All are caught in that above- mentioned trap of being unable to challenge for any kind of power (even were they to put forward a coherent convincing alternative to the present mess-which they don't), and their protests going largely unheard. Only in Latin America has real change taken place and there it's been either the traditional left or else, as in Venezuela, elements emerging from the state itself putting themselves at the forefront of mass movements, and with the latters' approval.


----------



## chilango (Jul 5, 2012)

I'm not talking about salvation. Far from it. Capitalism cannot, and will not, endure. What takes it's place is (at best) up for grabs.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 6, 2012)

grit said:


>



I was taking heed of Noam Chomsky words, of people understanding the importance of being patient when building progressive movements. These things don't happen overnight and he gave examples of the fight for women's rights and the civil rights movement, which took decades to develop into a organisation that brought about eventual change.


----------



## grit (Jul 6, 2012)

audiotech said:


> I was taking heed of Noam Chomsky words, of people understanding the importance of being patient when building progressive movements. These things don't happen overnight and he gave examples of the fight for women's rights and the civil rights movement, which took decades to develop into a organisation that brought about eventual change.


 
You said "patience is a mute point". That doesn't make any sense. It could be a moot point, but thats still ambiguous tbh.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 6, 2012)

grit said:


> You said "patience is a mute point". That doesn't make any sense. It could be a moot point, but thats still ambiguous tbh.


 
Excuse my spelling and a poor turn of phrase, not worth arguing about. A moot point on my part. as it turns out.


----------



## treelover (Jul 17, 2012)

Increasingly baffled at the lack of response, imo, these are epoch making events similar to the move to Thatcherism/Neo-liberalism in the late 70's, the crash, the expenses scandal, the banks, outsourcing failures, I really expect the universities and FE to be the next embroiled in scandal....

even N/L must see it is all unravelling, only today HSBC, yes, HSBC are found guilty of money laundering...


----------



## treelover (Jul 17, 2012)

audiotech said:


> I was taking heed of Noam Chomsky words, of people understanding the importance of being patient when building progressive movements. These things don't happen overnight and he gave examples of the fight for women's rights and the civil rights movement, which took decades to develop into a organisation that brought about eventual change.


 

I think you are right to a degree, a few years no one was interested in welfare issues, no you have the Spartacus movement, Boycott Workfare, the thousands of concerned citizens who took on Tesco, etc..


----------

