# Capitalism Isn't Working.



## TremulousTetra (Oct 26, 2011)

I was on Facebook the other day, and this lad told me that if you put onions out around your house, [so just cut them in half and place them around your room's], when the flues and stuff start knocking about, that method absorbs all the badness in the air, stopping you from getting flues etc. It was also claimed that this method helped people in the period of the bubonic plague, stopping people from catching the airborne disease, for the same reason.

Now whether this is true or false is not really important to me, it seems to me that the drug companies wouldn't be interested in doing such research anyway. Why? Because, if they were to do research and find out that that method worked well, people wouldn't buy their medicine's, people would just use the onion method.

The onion method could be a great boon to society, it could be an old wives tale, but  if it were left to the drugs companies, we wouldn't know one way or the other. They wouldn't be interested in doing the research, because they couldn't make any money out of it.

Now translate this out across society, to all research and development. To looking at solutions for the environment. To looking at solutions for the economy. You can see that a system that puts profit before people, is holding society back from developing the solutions that could give humanity a future. You can see, capitalism isn't working.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 26, 2011)

I dunno, this post made me smile.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 26, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I dunno, this post made me smile.



Me too.  Then it made me smack the palm of my hand into my face.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 26, 2011)

still smiling?


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 26, 2011)

No, it was quite a hard smack.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2011)

Capitalism is working.That's all it is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2011)

from smile to smite


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 26, 2011)

smiteling.


----------



## JimW (Oct 26, 2011)

A French comrade shows us the way to re-appropriate the fruits (and vegetables) of our labour.


----------



## sptme (Oct 26, 2011)

I think there is a gap in the market for an onion slicing and distribution machine. I could make a fortune.


----------



## past caring (Oct 26, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> *I was on Facebook the other day*, and this lad told me that if you put onions out around your house, [so just cut them in half and place them around your room's], when the flues and stuff start knocking about, that method absorbs all the badness in the air, stopping you from getting flues etc. It was also claimed that this method helped people in the period of the bubonic plague, stopping people from catching the airborne disease, for the same reason.
> 
> Now whether this is true or false is not really important to me, it seems to me that the drug companies wouldn't be interested in doing such research anyway. Why? Because, if they were to do research and find out that that method worked well, people wouldn't buy their medicine's, people would just use the onion method.
> 
> ...



Sounds to me like the SWP's 2011 equivalent of the "I was taking to a couple of workmates today...." spiel that the hacks used to preface their little homilies with at branch meetings in order to impress the more credulous comrades.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 26, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I was on Facebook the other day, and this lad told me that if you put onions out around your house, [so just cut them in half and place them around your room's], when the flues and stuff start knocking about, that method absorbs all the badness in the air, stopping you from getting flues etc.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 26, 2011)

Capitalism ain't working but onions certainly do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2011)

past caring said:


> Sounds to me like the SWP's 2011 equivalent of the "I was taking to a couple of workmates today...." spiel that the hacks used to preface their little homilies with at branch meetings in order to impress the more credulous comrades.



Never! 

Say it ain't so!! 

As for the onion _schtick_, several of the constiuents of onions are natural bactericides, same as with garlic. Leaving cut onions or garlic claoves probably wouldn't make disease less likely, but rubbing a freshly cut onion over your hands would (if only because no-one would come near you, due to the smell!).


----------



## elbows (Oct 26, 2011)

If Marx had managed to get a grip on his carbuncles via the use of raw garlic, then we may have been robbed of some rather important analysis.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 27, 2011)

if only the the average person had the same level of political consciousness as some urban75ites.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> if only the the average person had the same level of political consciousness as some urban75ites.



'If only people weren't inculcated by "the-powers-that-be" with an attitude of parliamentary democracy being the only game in town' would be more apposite.
As it is, people tolerate shit because they believe the only choice is between a diet of shit-and-potatoes or a diet of shit-and-rice.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Oct 27, 2011)

Never heard of onions warding off flu, I know garlic is good for keeping bugs at bay probably the smelly breath you end up with  Onions are good for getting rid of that smell you get painting

KoD


----------



## spacemonkey (Oct 27, 2011)

The onion thing is bollocks. I don't even know where to start....


----------



## audiotech (Oct 27, 2011)

I was on facebook the other day and there there was the usual turgid crap coming from SWP members past and present.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 27, 2011)

And so capitalism is working.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 27, 2011)

Yeah, very badly.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 27, 2011)

But still, working, ubiquitous and masterful. #hic


----------



## toblerone3 (Oct 27, 2011)

spacemonkey said:


> The onion thing is bollocks. I don't even know where to start....



You're missing the point, onions are just an example, there could be many other things similar to onions that are beneficial.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I was on Facebook the other day, and this lad told me that if you put onions out around your house, [so just cut them in half and place them around your room's], when the flues and stuff start knocking about, that method absorbs all the badness in the air, stopping you from getting flues etc.


what if you've already got a flue in your house?


----------



## toblerone3 (Oct 27, 2011)

Apples are also said to be quite good for you. An apple a day keeps the doctor away.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> Apples are also said to be quite good for you. An apple a day keeps the doctor away.


bollocks. the doctor's been staying away ever since they stopped doing house calls.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 28, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> if only the the average person had the same level of political consciousness as some urban75ites.



Translation: 'I have the audacity to speak on behalf of Urban75 posters, who I believe think most people are "stupid", when in actual fact I'm the really dumb-arse here.'


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2011)

I once successfully held off an invasion of doctors using nothing other than granny smiths and then other crap vrieties- by the end we were down to crabapples.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 28, 2011)

*Holds aloft blood-sucking leeches and a bunch of garlic.*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2011)

audiotech said:


> *Holds aloft blood-sucking leeches and a bunch of garlic.*



Are the leeches metaphorical or literal?

I ask because I'm rather enjoying the thought of you holding various business magnates aloft by the throat.


----------



## Willy_Popel (Oct 30, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I was on Facebook the other day, and this lad told me that if you put onions out around your house, [so just cut them in half and place them around your room's], when the flues and stuff start knocking about, that method absorbs all the badness in the air, stopping you from getting flues etc. It was also claimed that this method helped people in the period of the bubonic plague, stopping people from catching the airborne disease, for the same reason.
> 
> Now whether this is true or false is not really important to me, it seems to me that the drug companies wouldn't be interested in doing such research anyway. Why? Because, if they were to do research and find out that that method worked well, people wouldn't buy their medicine's, people would just use the onion method.
> 
> ...


 
Great post .. so obvious and simply true

Capitalism isn't working because capitalism is not what we are experiencing
Free trade, laissez faire etc is not the current system

If it were the banks would have gone bust and Jo Bloggs could have started a new one

What we have is a buncha thick freeloading caaaants pulling every ladder that exists behind em

You might call it communism if communism didn't have such a bad name tbf

imho


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2011)

Oh, another libertarian. What we have is really-existing capitalism. The capitalism that developed out of the failures of the free markets you propose (and that never and could never have existed in the form you imagine).


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 30, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> As it is, people tolerate shit because they believe the only choice is between a diet of shit-and-potatoes or a diet of shit-and-rice.



As someone on here once said, it doesn't matter if you go with the blue sauce or the red sauce, it's still the same dog shit sandwich


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> 'If only people weren't inculcated by "the-powers-that-be" with an attitude of parliamentary democracy being the only game in town' would be more apposite.
> As it is, people tolerate shit because they believe the only choice is between a diet of shit-and-potatoes or a diet of shit-and-rice.


yeh, but you don't, do you? You have a higher level of political consciousness of what the cause of the problems are, and how class is THE problem.

[sos, not had time to answer you.]


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 3, 2011)

Willy_Popel said:


> Great post .. so obvious and simply true
> 
> Capitalism isn't working because capitalism is not what we are experiencing
> Free trade, laissez faire etc is not the current system
> ...



And i might call you an idiot.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Capitalism is working.That's all it is.


you misread I think;
"You can see that a system that puts profit before people, is holding society back from developing the solutions that could give humanity a future. You can see, capitalism isn't working."


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 3, 2011)

It's working ... for the rich.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 3, 2011)

Willy_Popel said:


> Great post .. so obvious and simply true
> 
> Capitalism isn't working because capitalism is not what we are experiencing
> Free trade, laissez faire etc is not the current system
> ...





...and there was me thinking that i was politically illiterate compared to the P&P average...


----------



## ska invita (Nov 3, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> Apples are also said to be quite good for you. An apple a day keeps the doctor away.


i eat an apple every day and im still really susceptible to the flu, though it may be the way apples are treated in supermarkets thats killing the goodness out of them... capitalism grrrr 

Im wondering how many onions it might take to make a flu firewall


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 3, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> It's working ... for the rich.


I know he mean't that, lol. but it's inane pedantry given the context was plainly stating that in providing for human being's, capitalism isn't working.

However, if we are going to be pedantic, it is far too simplistic imo to say capitalism IS working for the rich/ruling class. Which would the rich rather have, a 1930s style depression or a post-war style boom? The rich are alienated [in Marx's sense of the word, lacking control over] from their own system. hence the title 'The Economics of the Madhouse'.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I know he mean't that, lol. but it's inane pedantry given the context was plainly stating that in providing for human being's, capitalism isn't working.


I didn't mean that though. I meant that the absolute basis for the existence of capitalism is wage-labour, is _working_. It is by definition working.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't mean that though. I meant that the absolute basis for the existence of capitalism is wage-labour, is _working_. It is by definition working.


lol, you should have said that then.

So what?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2011)

Nothing. It was just a a crap pun in passing. Crack on about the onions.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Nothing. It was a crap pun.


agreed!


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Capitalism is working.That's all it is.


not here its not, i've sold hardly anything this week!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> yeh, but you don't, do you? You have a higher level of political consciousness of what the cause of the problems are, and how class is THE problem.
> 
> [sos, not had time to answer you.]



My political consciousness is no higher than most. I've merely had my nose rubbed in the contradictions more often than many of my contemporaries.

Please don't project your Swappite vanguardist guilt onto me, you unseemly person.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> My political consciousness is no higher than most. I've merely had my nose rubbed in the contradictions more often than many of my contemporaries.


so your interest/reading/activity in politics has given you no better political consciousness/awareness than those "inculcated by the powers that be"?

I disagree. You plainly have a political consciousness far beyond the vast majority of people I meet/know. In fact quite a few on U75 do. in fact what is so slap head obvious on here too many people, capitalism isn't working, isn't so obvious to the majority of people who have contributed to this thread in other forums. Many, including those who are much cleverer than you, quite understandably have no interest in politics. those do have an interest in politics, have a low level of consciousness of the classless alternatives. Your refusal to accept the obvious smacks more of dogma, or semantics, rather than the actuality.



> Please don't project your Swappite vanguardist guilt onto me, you unseemly person.


lol, I too reject the SWP Vanguardism that exists in your head.


----------



## junglevip (Nov 3, 2011)

Do you think there is a better example than the onion theory.  I was thinking fluoride


----------



## Fuchs66 (Nov 3, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> And i might call you an idiot.


and I may call you a cauliflower!


----------



## Fuchs66 (Nov 3, 2011)

but not necessarily mean it X


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> so your interest/reading/activity in politics has given you no better political consciousness/awareness than those "inculcated by the powers that be"?



It gives me no *higher* (your choice of words, not mine) political consciousness.



> I disagree. You plainly have a political consciousness far beyond the vast majority of people I meet/know. In fact quite a few on U75 do. in fact what is so slap head obvious on here too many people, capitalism isn't working, isn't so obvious to the majority of people who have contributed to this thread in other forums. Many, including those who are much cleverer than you, quite understandably have no interest in politics. those do have an interest in politics, have a low level of consciousness of the classless alternatives. Your refusal to accept the obvious smacks more of dogma, or semantics, rather than the actuality.



You think that people aren't politically conscious, and of course your experience of politics will have reinforced the idea that people need guidance. The problem with that is it doesn't take into account one of the primary reasons besides apathy that people don't exercise their political consciousness - the belief that to do so outside of "regular channels" is futile and/or personally dangerous.
People may be perfectly politically conscious, but may be "disabled" by the fact that they have social obligations that preclude getting involved in anything other than the most anodyne politics. It's not for nothing that those who are first to protest are usually those with least to lose.



> lol, I too reject the SWP Vanguardism that exists in your head.



I'm talking about the SWP vanguardism that exists as dogma, matey.


----------



## GEN.Eccentric (Nov 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> People may be perfectly politically conscious, but may be "disabled" by the fact that they have social obligations that preclude getting involved in anything other than the most anodyne politics. It's not for nothing that those who are first to protest are usually those with least to lose.



I would say it goes deeper than mere social obligations but what are the reasons for this? and how do we challange it? I mean why are 'social obligations' more important, surely it wasnt like this for the protestors at Peterloo for example, just ordinary working class people AFAIK, whats changed since then? Apart from the obvious (Thatcher etc.)

I have been bemused by this thread as I thought capitalism was working perfectly fine, complete with its crises and increasing disparity, Im not going to pretend to be as well read as some though so I always welcome people imparting their knowledge.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2011)

GEN.Eccentric said:


> I would say it goes deeper than mere social obligations but what are the reasons for this? and how do we challange it? I mean why are 'social obligations' more important, surely it wasnt like this for the protestors at Peterloo for example, just ordinary working class people AFAIK, whats changed since then? Apart from the obvious (Thatcher etc.)



At the time of Peterloo there were the same social obligations in play as now - responsibility to family and to community. What has changed, besides the type of response to dissent, is that people have, under capitalism, come to believe that they have more to lose than their antecedents at Peterloo had. The destruction of the extended family as a support unit (for reasons of infrastructure as well as policy) removed support networks that the concept of a nuclear family could never replace, even in the most co-operative of communities. If you're faced with a choice between meeting your social obligations to your family (whether that be the immediate obligation of putting decent food on the table or the long-term obligations of child-rearing) and risking arrest (and possibly concomitant loss of employment) for protesting, some people will swallow the bitter pill and keep their heads down, some will protest regardless while hoping for the best, and some will be stooges.



> I have been bemused by this thread as I thought capitalism was working perfectly fine, complete with its crises and increasing disparity, Im not going to pretend to be as well read as some though so I always welcome people imparting their knowledge.



Capitalism thrives on crisis, although perhaps not for the reasons that neo-liberal economists would attribute. However, crisis also provides capitalism with the possibility of devouring itself as the contradictions (those crises and disparities) become so forceful as to override what I suppose you could call the "instinct of self-preservation" that many politically-conscious people have.


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 3, 2011)

Capitalism is working absolutely perfectly, the problem is it was never meant to be a benefit to us plebs


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It gives me no *higher* (your choice of words, not mine) political consciousness.


LOL, hung up on a word, instead of the meaning.

Use whatever word you want, you have a greater awareness/consciousness. You have more awareness/consciousness. The meaning is the same impov.

Why?

so your interest/reading/activity in politics has given you no better political consciousness/awareness than those "inculcated by the powers that be"?

I disagree. You plainly have a political consciousness far beyond the vast majority of people I meet/know. In fact quite a few on U75 do. in fact what is so slap head obvious on here too many people, capitalism isn't working, isn't so obvious to the majority of people who have contributed to this thread in other forums. Many, including those who are much cleverer than you, quite understandably have no interest in politics. those do have an interest in politics, have a low level of consciousness of the classless alternatives. Your refusal to accept the obvious smacks more of dogma, or semantics, rather than the actuality.



> You think that people aren't politically conscious,


no. I Don't believe that.


> The problem with that is it doesn't take into account one of the primary reasons besides apathy that people don't exercise their political consciousness - the belief that to do so outside of "regular channels" is futile and/or personally dangerous.


seriously? You seriously believe the SWP are unaware of that problem? lol



> People may be perfectly politically conscious, but may be "disabled" by the fact that they have social obligations that preclude getting involved in anything other than the most anodyne politics. It's not for nothing that those who are first to protest are usually those with least to lose.


lol, people like oo, er ME! Again no revelation. But my main point is this, what percentage of the population in the UK would you assess, just in your own opinion, are at the same political awareness/consciousness as you?

However you want to word it, in essence you are more politically astute about the problems we face in this society, than the vast majority are, are you not?



> I'm talking about the SWP vanguardism that exists as dogma, matey.


no you're not. I've never met a member of the SWP who subscribes to the version of Vanguardism that you ascribe to them.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 4, 2011)

Nylock said:


> ...and there was me thinking that i was politically illiterate compared to the P&P average...


here's someone else who clearly accepts the actuality, that some people like yourself violent panda are more politically astute than others, have a higher level of revolutionary consciousness and political consciousness.why do you deny the obvious VP?

PS. I don't mean any disrespect to you Nylock.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

Pats him on the head


----------



## audiotech (Nov 4, 2011)

Prompted by RMP3's thread, I've just re-read Chris Harman's 'Party and Class' and referring to Lenin, Harman makes this point: 'Lenin did not believe that the working class is incapable of coming to a "socialist theoretical consciousness", but rather that the level of consciousness is never uniform.'

I heard recently that this article was crucial in deciding the International Socialists (forerunner of the SWP) turn towards Leninism.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 4, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Prompted by RMP3's thread, I've just re-read Chris Harman's 'Party and Class' and referring to Lenin, Harman makes this point: 'Lenin did not believe that the working class is incapable of coming to a "socialist theoretical consciousness", but rather that the level of consciousness is never uniform.'
> 
> I heard recently that this article was crucial in deciding the International Socialists (forerunner of the SWP) turn towards Leninism.


oh, don't go quoting what the SWP actualy say. lol


----------



## audiotech (Nov 4, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> oh, don't go quoting what the SWP actualy say. lol



Well, it was for you and to contradict your notion of a "*higher* political consciousness" that VP alluded to.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 4, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Well, it was for you and to contradict your notion of a "*higher* political consciousness" that VP alluded to.


A shame it doesn't contradict me then.
_'Lenin did not believe tha__t the working class is incapable of coming to a "socialist theoretical consciousness", __but rather that the level of consciousness is never uniform.__'_
if the consciousness isn't at a uniform level, it must be by definition be at different levels. Higher and lower levels.

And LOL , if the working class we are indeed incapable of coming to a socialist theoretical consciousness, there would be no point being a revolutionary.

----------------------

I've already dealt with this above. For me, higher level of consciousness, has no elitist element whatsoever to it. The physicist [Nylock maybe] has a higher level of consciousness in physics than does violent panda, but violent panda has a higher level of revolutionary consciousness than most physicists I have come across.

So substitute whatever word you want, are you seriously denying that violent Panda has a higher, better, greater level of revolutionary consciousness, than the vast majority of people you come across?

ETA.

Because the working class has to emancipate itself, the revolutionary party must reflect the class. But which section of the class is it to reflect? There is an unevenness of consciousness in the class, therefore the party must reflect the consciousness of the more advanced section of the class.

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr241/cliff.htm


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 4, 2011)

I for one look forward to increased productivity under the guidance of our great leader ResistanceMP3.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

> Because the working class has to emancipate itself, the revolutionary party must reflect the class.


What redundant assumptions can any posters spot in this?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 4, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So substitute whatever word you want, are you seriously denying that violent Panda has a higher, better, greater level of revolutionary consciousness, than the vast majority of people you come across?



Yes. 

What about original thought?

To quote Bruce Forsyth for a moment.

Higher? Lower?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 4, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> A shame it doesn't contradict me then.
> _'Lenin did not believe tha__t the working class is incapable of coming to a "socialist theoretical consciousness", __but rather that the level of consciousness is never uniform.__'_
> if the consciousness isn't at a uniform level, it must be by definition be at different levels. Higher and lower levels.
> 
> And LOL , if the working class we are indeed incapable of coming to a socialist theoretical consciousness, there would be no point being a revolutionary.



Eh? Lenin *did not* believe that the working class is incapable of coming to a "socialist theoretical consciousness".

Different doesn't necessary mean "higher", or "lower". Anyway, how do you decide on such classifications of "higher" and "lower"?


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Different doesn't necessary mean "higher", or "lower". Anyway, how do you decide on such classifications of "higher" and "lower"?



You base it on some tedious dogma that your revolutionary party holds dear.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 4, 2011)

earth has a population of seven billion. capitalism is working better than anything so far.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 4, 2011)

eoin_k said:


> I for one look forward to increased productivity under the guidance of our great leader ResistanceMP3.



One consequence of productivity and a five year plan, dictated by Stalin, saw one factory unable to match the targets set on the manufacture of rivets, which was assessed on the amount of steel used. To overcome this and to be able to present a success story to their overlords, the factory produced one giant rivet.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2011)

discokermit said:


> earth has a population of seven billion. capitalism is working better than anything so far.



It had more chance to. It's been pretty good at exploiting resources and driving technology forwards. It stands a reasonable chance of eventually being destroyed by its own strengths though. And given the opportunity I can't see any reason why various alternatives couldn't do far better with all that is available today. My concern is that limits to resource availability may mean they'l never get the chance to manage the resources necessary to sustain 7 billion+, and some will use this to say 'capitalism was better, these other things don't meet our needs, lets go chasing after the good old days by embracing capitalism once more'.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 4, 2011)

discokermit said:


> earth has a population of seven billion. capitalism is working better than anything so far.



Well, the capitalist class is losing faith in itself even if you have a somewhat optimistic view of the system. For example, Charles Moore in The Daily Telegraph has written that 'the left was right and the right was wrong'. Coming from someone like that - given his right-wing politics - indicates your optimism in the system is not shared by at least one of its staunchest supporters.

A recent IMF report states that:



> The global economy has continued to recover over the past year, although growth remains uneven across countries. In many advanced countries, growth continues to be relatively weak, held back by high unemployment rates, weak financial conditions, and concerns about the fiscal and financial sector outlook. Difficulties in a number of European countries have been particularly acute. In contrast, growth in emerging markets is about overheating in a number of these economies.



It also points to an International Labor Organization estimate and warns of a risk to social cohesion. As of April 2011 some 205 million people worldwide were still looking for a job - up by about 30 million since 2007. The increase in high youth unemployment is a special concern' the report informs us. This, despite huge surplus wealth that's been generated, but the few who hold this wealth are investing, so it's difficult to see how new jobs are to be created?

And as for low income countries:



> Executive Directors noted that the crisis had triggered the sharpest economic slowdown in four decades, pushing an additional 64 million people into extreme poverty by year-end 2010.



http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/ar/2011/eng/pdf/ar11_eng.pdf

Capitalism is undoubtably better than what went before, mind you comparing it to slavery and feudalism is a pretty low bench-mark, however, now it has entered a stage in its development where it's working yes, but with massive state intervention to keep it afloat. This can't continue and neither can compound growth rates of 3 percent per annum, which is the standard indicator of a "healthy economy".


----------



## discokermit (Nov 4, 2011)

elbows said:


> And given the opportunity I can't see any reason why various alternatives couldn't do far better with all that is available today.


i'm one hundred percent sure they could. much better.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Well, the capitalist class is losing faith in itself even if you have a somewhat optimistic view of the system. For example, Charles Moore in The Daily Telegraph has written that 'the left was right and the right was wrong'. Coming from someone like that - given his right-wing politics - indicates your optimism in the system is not shared by at least one of its staunchest supporters.
> 
> A recent IMF report states that:
> 
> ...


You don't half go on and say fuck all. In and out.Try it.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 4, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Capitalism is undoubtably better than what went before, mind you comparing it to slavery and feudalism is a pretty low bench-mark,


it's the only bench mark. unless you're comparing it to fucking ant society or summat?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 4, 2011)

Give it a rest.

Better?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Give it a rest.
> 
> Better?


Say loads, but expect what you say to get talked about. Grow up.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 4, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Give it a rest.
> 
> Better?


you start the post implying my statement made me have faith in and enthusiasm for capitalism and end it by agreeing with me.

so you did go on. and you did end up saying fuck all.


----------



## xenon (Nov 4, 2011)

Anyone know much about steady state economiccs? As a theory. Credible? Any recomendations for reading?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 4, 2011)

discokermit said:


> you start the post implying my statement made me have faith in and enthusiasm for capitalism and end it by agreeing with me.



I ended by saying that it couldn't continue.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

xenon said:


> Anyone know much about steady state economiccs? As a theory. Credible? Any recomendations for reading?


Never heard of


----------



## audiotech (Nov 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Say loads, but expect what you say to get talked about. Grow up.



I got some snide remark from you and this latest missive is just as pathetic.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

audiotech said:


> I got some snide remark from you and this latest missive is just as pathetic.


You didn't say anything. Please, say something.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 4, 2011)

audiotech said:


> I ended by saying that it couldn't continue.


i never said it could.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

discokermit said:


> i never said it could.


You're talking to a hardcore marxist too.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 4, 2011)

discokermit said:


> i never said it could.



Oh that's right the 'in and out' posting method.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 4, 2011)

from fifteen thousand to seven billion though. humans have been pretty good at organising themselves. tigers are down to less than five thousand, fucking losers.


----------



## xenon (Nov 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Never heard of



Just an alternative way of managing finite resources on a macro economic level. I think. Against economic continual growth predicated on the consumption of ever more resources. I need to look at it more. But it could be a bit "deep green" and have nothing to say about imancipating people from wage slavery.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 4, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Oh that's right the 'in and out' posting method.


in and out is a better method than the 'shake it all about' method.

hokey cokey?


----------



## discokermit (Nov 4, 2011)

fucking space travel!

ants couldn't come up with that. they're too fucking thick.


----------



## Cpatain Rbubish (Nov 5, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> capitalism isn't working.



I ma blodoy wroking!


----------



## Nylock (Nov 5, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> here's someone else who clearly accepts the actuality, that some people like yourself violent panda are more politically astute than others, have a higher level of revolutionary consciousness and political consciousness.why do you deny the obvious VP?
> 
> PS. I don't mean any disrespect to you Nylock.



No problem, but please don't use me as an example to reinforce your argument. Surely you'd be best placed to use any number of the right wing trolls that roam these boards, or that plonker i quoted in my original post?

I am the first to admit that i am not as politically well-read as a lot of the posters here (including but not exclusively VP), however i'd like to think that i am able to understand what these posters convey in their messages on these threads and draw my own conclusions from them.

I have a 'revolutionary consciousness' (whatever that means) that may not be as refined through reading political works as those you laud mp3 but that does not make me, by default, lumpen..

...if you see what i mean...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> LOL, hung up on a word, instead of the meaning.
> 
> Use whatever word you want, you have a greater awareness/consciousness. You have more awareness/consciousness. The meaning is the same impov.



The meaning isn't the same. That much is obvious to anyone who understands English composition.



> Why?
> 
> so your interest/reading/activity in politics has given you no better political consciousness/awareness than those "inculcated by the powers that be"?



You're equating political consciousness with knowledge of politics. Knowing about politics doesn't make you automatically a more politically-conscious individual. That's not dogma or semantics, it's reality.



> no. I Don't believe that.



Why do you say, in a previous post that I "plainly have a political consciousness far beyond most people I meet/know" unless you're attributing an absence of political consciousness to the majority?



> seriously? You seriously believe the SWP are unaware of that problem? lol



I don't believe that the SP is unaware of the problem, I suspect (from my own readings of the SWP's equivalent of "sacred texts" that the problem is nonetheless not given as much weight as it requires, otherwise surely some time in the last 30 years or so, the SWP would have been able to arrive at some kind of solution or amelioration of the problem? As it is, they've arrived at nothing of the sort, have they?



> lol, people like oo, er ME! Again no revelation. But my main point is this, what percentage of the population in the UK would you assess, just in your own opinion, are at the same political awareness/consciousness as you?
> 
> However you want to word it, in essence you are more politically astute about the problems we face in this society, than the vast majority are, are you not?



Again, astuteness about/knowledge of politics isn't the same thing as political consciousness.



> no you're not. I've never met a member of the SWP who subscribes to the version of Vanguardism that you ascribe to them.



I haven't ascribed a version, I've ascribed the fact of their vanguardism to them.[/quote][/quote]


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> A shame it doesn't contradict me then.
> _'Lenin did not believe tha__t the working class is incapable of coming to a "socialist theoretical consciousness", __but rather that the level of consciousness is never uniform.__'_
> if the consciousness isn't at a uniform level, it must be by definition be at different levels. Higher and lower levels.
> 
> And LOL , if the working class we are indeed incapable of coming to a socialist theoretical consciousness, there would be no point being a revolutionary.



What an absolutely perfect illustration of the instrumentality of the politics of some people. "Why bother if there's nothing in ot for us to benefit from?" 



> I've already dealt with this above. For me, higher level of consciousness, has no elitist element whatsoever to it. The physicist [Nylock maybe] has a higher level of consciousness in physics than does violent panda...



Consciousness is not knowledge. Knowledge is not consciousness.



> ...but violent panda has a higher level of revolutionary consciousness than most physicists I have come across.
> 
> So substitute whatever word you want, are you seriously denying that violent Panda has a higher, better, greater level of revolutionary consciousness, than the vast majority of people you come across?



How would he know? What yardstick are you measuring "revolutionary consciousness" by? What yardstick should he use?



> ETA.
> 
> Because the working class has to emancipate itself, the revolutionary party must reflect the class.



Ignorant unreflexive cant that I'd expect more from a religious believer than someone supposedly grounded in political knowledge.
Why must the revolutionary party *reflect* the class? Why should it not develop from and inhere the working class?
You see, when people have historically used terms like "reflect", it has meant bandwaggoneering - a shift of rhetoric to reflect the concerns of a section of a population on which you have calculated you can build a movement, rather than the development of a movement that genuinely inheres the concerns of that section of a population.



> But which section of the class is it to reflect? There is an unevenness of consciousness in the class, therefore the party must reflect the consciousness of the more advanced section of the class.
> 
> http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr241/cliff.htm



So what we can establish from your peroration is that with a little manouvering, "the revolutionary party" can, in fact, "find" a level of consciousness to reflect that inheres the revolutionary party's ideas, and can ignore the concerns of the wider class as irrlevant to their project.

Well done. Another dictatorship established that claims to be of the proletariat, but is actually of those who see themselves as "shepherds".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What redundant assumptions can any posters spot in this?



Don't you mean "how many"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2011)

xenon said:


> Anyone know much about steady state economiccs? As a theory. Credible? Any recomendations for reading?



You mean the idea of which the most current iteration is zero-growth capitalism?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 5, 2011)

deleted as a side issue that I could come back to.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 5, 2011)

Nylock said:


> No problem, but please don't use me as an example to reinforce your argument. Surely you'd be best placed to use any number of the right wing trolls that roam these boards, or that plonker i quoted in my original post?
> 
> I am the first to admit that i am not as politically well-read as a lot of the posters here (including but not exclusively VP), however i'd like to think that i am able to understand what these posters convey in their messages on these threads and draw my own conclusions from them.
> 
> ...


No mate. Your a better example than someone ‘lumpen’, [I don't really subscribe to the idea of lumpenproletariat etc] precisely because you are able to distinguish between the more advanced and the more backwards of the working-class. You are able to distinguish between say those who hold ideas like the BNP , and those who hold ideas such as Violent Panda. And on that scale you are able to place yourself nearer to VP, than to the BNP.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> How would he know? What yardstick are you measuring "revolutionary consciousness" by? What yardstick should he use?


We are able to distinguish between say those who hold ideas like the BNP , and those who hold ideas such as Violent Panda, and say the former are more backwards, and the latter more advanced.

Sure, this is a revolutionary centric viewpoint, but that is the fucking point.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 5, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> No mate. Your a better example than someone ‘lumpen’, [I don't really subscribe to the idea of lumpenproletariat etc] precisely because you are able to distinguish between the more advanced and the more backwards of the working-class. You are able to distinguish between say those who hold ideas like the BNP , and those who hold ideas such as Violent Panda. And on that scale you are able to place yourself nearer to VP, than to the BNP.


 
I have read this post several times now and i still come away from it feeling like i've been somehow patronised...

...and using terms like 'advanced' or 'backwards' in order to describe how informed/uniformed you believe people to be wrt revolutionary politics is both dangerous and wrong imo


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 5, 2011)

Nylock said:


> I have read this post several times now and i still come away from it feeling like i've been somehow patronised...
> 
> ...and using terms like 'advanced' or 'backwards' in order to describe how informed/uniformed you believe people to be wrt revolutionary politics is both dangerous and wrong imo


Describing the BNP as backward's wrt revolutionary politics is wrong?

Describing VP politics as better, higher than the BNP's is patronising?

Wasn't it you who said I should contrast VP politics with the more lumpen [ _[I don't really subscribe to the idea of lumpenproletariat etc]_] and when I do, I'm still wrong?

okay, by what yardstick do you make this assessment?





Nylock said:


> ...and there was me thinking that i was politically illiterate compared to the P&P average...


----------



## Nylock (Nov 5, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Describing the BNP as backward's is wrong?
> 
> Describing VP politics as better, higher than the BNP's is patronising?



No. But that's not what i said in my post, is it?

However, describing the sort of people (which is what i read your post to say) who vote for the BNP as 'backwards' as opposed to, say 'ignorant' or 'uniformed' whilst at the same time lauding anyone with a 'revolutionary', 'politically aware' outlook as 'advanced' is wrong/counterproductive in my viewpoint.

Not sure why you categorise people as 'advanced' or 'backwards' based solely on which political creed they have fallen into line behind (and i quote from you here):



> the more advanced and the more backwards of the working-class


.

But as someone from a solid working class background i find that statement offensive and patronising. People can change their outlook based on how informed they are and not on how 'developed' they are on some so-called sliding scale based on being 'backwards' or 'advanced'. Where on this binary scale would you place, for example, a revolutionary socialist who holds some reactionary, distasteful views? Ultimately, who'se to judge here? You?

Also, whilst i'm at it, describing VP's politics in relation to the BNP's is completely irrelevant as far as feeling patronised by you is concerned. I felt patronised by you as that is how the tone of your reply looked like to me. Apologies for misreading your post if i had and i find it difficult to articulate how exactly your post came across as patronising to me, it just did is all. Maybe i'm slightly rattled by being used as some sort of example to help with your 'uber revolutionary intellectual' portrayal of VP...



> Wasn't it you who said I should contrast VP politics with the more lumpen [ _[I don't really subscribe to the idea of lumpenproletariat etc]_] and when I do, I'm still wrong?



No, i never said such a thing. Please do not put words into my mouth. E2A: On re-reading my post it looks like i did. d'oh 



> okay, by what yardstick do you make this assessment?



It was a throwaway, almost flippant, self-deprecating comment that was designed to show up by it's very thoughtlessness the lack of any sort of 'thought' put into the post i was quoting.

Maybe in future i should take the P&P forums more seriously... That way i'll avoid such misunderstandings in future


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

There's a reason he's laughed at in P&P nylock...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 5, 2011)

Nylock said:


> Also, whilst i'm at it, describing VP's politics in relation to the BNP's is completely irrelevant as far as feeling patronised by you is concerned. I felt patronised by you as that is how the tone of your reply looked like to me. Apologies for misreading your post if i had and i find it difficult to articulate how exactly your post came across as patronising to me, it just did is all.



Hmmm, thanks for the apology, and fair enough I apologise if I gave you that feeling.



ResistanceMP3 said:


> Wasn't it you who said I should contrast VP politics with the more lumpen [ _[I don't really subscribe to the idea of lumpenproletariat etc]_] and when I do, I'm still wrong?
> 
> 
> Nylock said:
> ...


----------



## Nylock (Nov 5, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> WRT a revolutionary perspective on the problems of society and their solutions, wouldn't it be insane to say Nick Griffin's views are closer to a revolutionary perspective, in advance of VP, and that violent panda is further away, backwards of Nick Griffin's position?



Who's saying that?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 6, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So substitute whatever word you want, are you seriously denying that violent Panda has a higher, better, greater level of revolutionary consciousness, than the vast majority of people you come across?
> 
> 
> audiotech said:
> ...


nobody has yet come back to why that yardstick is inappropriate. And I'm not the only one who thinks such a yardstick is helpful in making political assessments, here is another yardstick.

what I'm completely puzzled at, is why people would find ANY assessment of people's political consciousness invalid, offensive etc. Any revolutionary who wants to change society to a less elitist structure, change society to a classless society, cannot ignore that the working-class has an uneven level of consciousness?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> nobody has yet come back to why that yardstick is inappropriate.



What yardstick? As far as I can see you haven't defined a yardstick, you've only mentioned one.



> And I'm not the only one who thinks such a yardstick is helpful in making political assessments, here is another yardstick.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Political Cuntpass? Are you taking the piss? That's about as accurate as your representations of anarchist views, perhaps even less accurate!



> what I'm completely puzzled at, is why people would find ANY assessment of people's political consciousness invalid, offensive etc. Any revolutionary who wants to change society to a less elitist structure, change society to a classless society, cannot ignore that the working-class has an uneven level of consciousness?



Who says it is being ignored? Perhaps it's you that is placing an undue degree of relevance on the matter?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> We are able to distinguish between say those who hold ideas like the BNP , and those who hold ideas such as Violent Panda, and say the former are more backwards, and the latter more advanced.




That isn't a yardstick, that's your perspective. A yardstick is an objective tool, not a subjective opinion.




> Sure, this is a revolutionary centric viewpoint, but that is the fucking point.



That's hardly "revolutionary centric". Defining something as a "revolutionary centric viewpoint" merely because it places the BNP as "backwards" makes no sense, as it would then follow that anyone who despised the BNP's ideology as the crap it is would be "revolutionary centric".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2011)

Nylock said:


> I have read this post several times now and i still come away from it feeling like i've been somehow patronised...



You'll get used to it from rmp3. 



> ...and using terms like 'advanced' or 'backwards' in order to describe how informed/uniformed you believe people to be wrt revolutionary politics is both dangerous and wrong imo



It shows that he mistakes his perspective for an objective position.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There's a reason he's laughed at in P&P nylock...



*A* reason?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 6, 2011)

@RMP3 The "yes" wasn't serious hence the winking smiley aside it you humourless cretin.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 7, 2011)

audiotech said:


> @RMP3 The "yes" wasn't serious hence the winking smiley aside it you humourless cretin.


I know, I just wanted to force you to concede, so everyone can read, that violent panda DOES HAVE a higher level of consciousness.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 7, 2011)

Nylock said:


> Who's saying that?


sorry, I didn't have time to come back to this yesterday.

Er, nobody is saying that. It is a hypothetical question, to establish a fact. That if anybody were to answer that question honestly, they would have to concede there is nothing wrong with calling Nick Griffin more backward, reactionary than violent panda. Why? You know why, but I will just spell it out for clarity .

if you way up the political consciousness [political worldview] of Nick Griffin, you will soon find out he's a sexist, racist, homophobe, anti-civil rights and democratic rights. He is a totally reactionary politically backward character. Violent Panda on the other hand, you may not know this if you are not familiar with him, is a anarchist, totally committed to gay rights, women's rights, civil rights, democracy and freedom all totally progressive and politically forward looking type of person. By nature fascism is reactionary/backwards, whilst anarchism is progressive/forwards. So what?

As I look at the working class I have met in my friends family and aquaintances [I too am from a solidly working class background], I have come across fascist’s and people like VP. This experience is not contradicted by any study I have seen of the working class. So if if you accept the answer I given above to the hypothetical question, you have logically to accept there are some working-class people who are more politically backwards, reactionary, and some people who are more politically progressive, forward. 


Nylock said:


> However, describing the sort of people (which is what i read your post to say) who vote for the BNP as 'backwards' as opposed to, say 'ignorant' or 'uniformed' whilst at the same time lauding anyone with a 'revolutionary', 'politically aware' outlook as 'advanced' is wrong/counterproductive in my viewpoint.


 if you prefer the term is reactionary and progressive fair enough. I can only say that in the use of the term backward and advanced you inferred a pejorative nature, I didn't necessarily intend at that time. [The people who vote BNP didn't even enter my mind, until you mentioned it.]

However, these two groups anarchists and fascist, are a tiny tiny minority of the working class. What about the vast majority of the working class?

 Again in my experience from a working-class background, and in most studies I have seen, the vast majority are somewhere along the spectrum in between these two extremes. Anywhere from UKIP, CON, LIB LAB etc. loads of them would have what Marxists call contradictory levels of consciousness. Ie my uncle. Fantastic on trade union rights, civil rights etc, whilst being thoroughly racist, homophobic, sexist. By the same measure above, I would say violent Panda is more progressive, more forward thinking than my uncle OVER ALL.

It is not static situation as you pointed out. Circumstances could propel my uncle and the vast majority of the working class to a more progressive forward thinking position than that of violent Panda, such as the views of the SWP, but at this moment in time I think it is fair to say VP is more progressive than the vast majority of the working class. 


audiotech said:


> @RMP3 The "yes" wasn't serious hence the winking smiley aside it you humourless cretin.


I know, I just wanted to force you to concede, so everyone can read, that violent panda DOES HAVE a higher level of consciousness.  

Anyways,that's my point of view. If you want to reject it, fine. Have a nice day.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 7, 2011)

oh sweet jesus christ almighty 

E2A i'll try and get back to this when i get back in a couple of days... then again, maybe i won't. You're now saying i mentioned nick griffin. I don't have the time to look through this thread right now, but i will comb it when i get back.

<i hate it when people put words in my mouth>


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It shows that he mistakes his perspective for an objective position.


Which just show's your a liar or cant read 





ResistanceMP3 said:


> We are able to distinguish between say those who hold ideas like the BNP , and those who hold ideas such as Violent Panda, and say the former are more backwards, and the latter more advanced.
> 
> Sure, this is a revolutionary centric viewpoint, but that is the fucking point.



I tend to vacillate between the two. Your complete misrepresentation of the real position of the SWP on so many many topics, even though you claim to have been a member, is astounding.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 7, 2011)

Perhaps its because the swp change their position so many times?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 7, 2011)

Nylock said:


> oh sweet jesus christ almighty
> 
> E2A i'll try and get back to this when i get back in a couple of days... then again, maybe i won't. You're now saying i mentioned nick griffin. I don't have the time to look through this thread right now, but i will comb it when i get back.
> 
> <i hate it when people put words in my mouth>


I never said you said it, I said he was a hypothetical question.

Well I'm busy now so leave it, if you want.there is more heat than light anyway.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Perhaps its because the swp change their position so many times?


lol
Maybe.  They've always made sense to me from when I was completely politically illiterate, to the slightly politically literate state I'm in now.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 7, 2011)

At least you're honest i guess


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 7, 2011)

i think *everyone* has what you say are "contradictory levels of consciousness" tbh. we all have some very weird views, we all make allowances for mates/family, etc. someone could believe in being a socialist, public ownership, trade unions etc and have (for the sake of arguement) a soft spot for the monarchy and the royal wedding for example.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> i think everyone has what you say are "contradictory levels of consciousness" tbh. we all have some very weird views, we all make allowances for mates/family, etc. someone could believe in being a socialist, public ownership, trade unions etc and have (for the sake of arguement) a soft spot for the monarchy and the royal wedding for example.


absolutely! Including "uber" revlutionaries such as VP  or Tony Cliff.





ViolentPanda said:


> 'If only people weren't inculcated by "the-powers-that-be" with an attitude of parliamentary democracy being the only game in town' would be more apposite.


 because the inculcation of the dominant ideas in society is unremitting, all pervasive.

BUT! That does not negate the idea that some people are less inculcated than others, and that we could all move to being less so inculcated. In my opinion, that movement takes place through class struggle, not by debate in places like this. That's why you don't start from fighting with people about their ideas, you always start from uniting and fighting with people against a ruling class, and in that struggle their ideas change.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 7, 2011)

I'm not really under an illusion that posting on here or other boards is gonna do anything


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I'm not really under an illusion that posting on here or other boards is gonna do anything


sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you were.

are you familiar with the Marxist historians argument, "there is no such thing as working-class culture". It is pertinent on my opinions upon contradictory levels of consciousness within revolutionaries. If not, please don't ask me to try and explain it. I don't seem to be very good at that.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 7, 2011)

Don't worry then. And no i'm not really that familiar with it, but then I don't seem to be with a lot of things


----------



## Nylock (Nov 7, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I never said you said it, I said he was a hypothetical question.
> 
> Well I'm busy now so leave it, if you want.there is more heat than light anyway.



Trip got postponed, but yeah i'll leave it. I'm clearly reading the wrong things in your posts so i'll leave it there


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 8, 2011)

Nylock said:


> Trip got postponed, but yeah i'll leave it. I'm clearly reading the wrong things in your posts so i'll leave it there


hey, genuinely big respect to you. Internet forums are so full of bile and hatred filled morons, incapable of sharing a difference of opinion, without responding with bile and hatred. It is genuinely refreshing to come across someone in a who talks to people in here, as he would in real life. Again, big respect.
In my opinion, the views you have shared are probably the views of the vast majority of people. I accept that mine are a minority view, a minority that needs to work harder to convince people like you of its opinion. In that I clearly failed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Which just show's your a liar or cant read



Does it? I think it's a legitimate comment from a literate person.



> I tend to vacillate between the two. Your complete misrepresentation of the real position of the SWP on so many many topics, even though you claim to have been a member, is astounding.



Elucidate this "complete misrepresentation", please. I'm betting that whatever you elucidate, I can find a non-selective quotation from the writings of a member of the CC that gainsays your elucidation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Perhaps its because the swp change their position so many times?



That's pretty much the meat of it, froggie.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Does it? I think it's a legitimate comment from a literate person.
> 
> Elucidate this "complete misrepresentation", please. I'm betting that whatever you elucidate, I can find a non-selective quotation from the writings of a member of the CC that gainsays your elucidation.


You fucked up, apologise and move on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> absolutely! Including "uber" revlutionaries such as VP or Tony Cliff. because the inculcation of the dominant ideas in society is unremitting, all pervasive.



No it isn't. Such views may be hegemonic, if you want to get all Gramsci about things, but they're not unavoidable. If they were unremitting and all-pervasive, there wouldn't be an SWP, for a start. Hegemony is inherently unstable, which is why the ruling classes continually attempt to legislate in favour of their ideas - to reinforce them against any and all alternative currents.



> BUT! That does not negate the idea that some people are less inculcated than others, and that we could all move to being less so inculcated. In my opinion, that movement takes place through class struggle, not by debate in places like this. That's why you don't start from fighting with people about their ideas, you always start from uniting and fighting with people against a ruling class, and in that struggle their ideas change.



But it does negate it. You can't have it both ways, that inculcation and indoctrination is all-pervasive and unremitting, *and* that such unremitting all-pervasion affects people asymmetrically.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> You fucked up, apologise and move on.



Apologise for what?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> No it isn't. Such views may be hegemonic, if you want to get all Gramsci about things, but they're not unavoidable. If they were unremitting and all-pervasive, there wouldn't be an SWP, for a start. Hegemony is inherently unstable, which is why the ruling classes continually attempt to legislate in favour of their ideas - to reinforce them against any and all alternative currents.
> 
> But it does negate it. You can't have it both ways, that inculcation and indoctrination is all-pervasive and unremitting, *and* that such unremitting all-pervasion affects people asymmetrically.


Agency V Structure?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Agency V Structure?



We can all exercise a degree of agency within even the most constraining structure, just as all agency inheres structural elements. There's tension between the two forces, but they're interdependent as well as being contingent. Even the "all-pervasive" and unremitting" ideas you posit are subject to those forces working within them. That's why no political or economic regime is permanent - because even the most closed political idea, theory or concept is still subject to influence.


----------



## campanula (Nov 8, 2011)

well, like many interested but politically naive people, I started to read this and am now falling over with ennui. Takes me back to tedious seminars on post-structuralism and other such opaque  subjects at college (when at least it was (almost) free - if I had to pay 9 large ones to hear the same sort of rambling incoherent rubbish I reckon I would be disrobing, shouting out demons out or summat). And yes, I also paid subs to various left wing tribalists in the 70s and 80s, only to flounder about with yet more incomprehension. Well, I am sure these discussions are thrilling and enlivening to those in the know or who possess the relevant tools for understanding but god help us dimwits who just want some theoretical grounding in our political landscape, if only so we can inculcate our grandchildren that there is more to life than the Kardashians and X-factor. Pleased to say said grandaughter had her first taste of Occupy - takes me back to encircling the base at Greenham.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> We can all exercise a degree of agency within even the most constraining structure, just as all agency inheres structural elements. There's tension between the two forces, but they're interdependent as well as being contingent. Even the "all-pervasive" and unremitting" ideas you posit are subject to those forces working within them. That's why no political or economic regime is permanent - because even the most closed political idea, theory or concept is still subject to influence.


There you go then.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 8, 2011)

campanula said:


> well, like many interested but politically naive people, I started to read this and am now falling over with ennui. Takes me back to tedious seminars on post-structuralism and other such opaque subjects at college (when at least it was (almost) free - if I had to pay 9 large ones to hear the same sort of rambling incoherent rubbish I reckon I would be disrobing, shouting out demons out or summat). And yes, I also paid subs to various left wing tribalists in the 70s and 80s, only to flounder about with yet more incomprehension. Well, I am sure these discussions are thrilling and enlivening to those in the know or who possess the relevant tools for understanding but god help us dimwits who just want some theoretical grounding in our political landscape, if only so we can inculcate our grandchildren that there is more to life than the Kardashians and X-factor. Pleased to say said grandaughter had her first taste of Occupy - takes me back to encircling the base at Greenham.


easy reading.http://socialistworker.co.uk/ http://socialistworker.org/

Don't think it's you. like computer geeks, political geeks have a lot of their own terminology which can be indecipherable when not familiar with.sorry for my part in that.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Apologise for what?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> There you go then.



What, you think that my post supports your point? It doesn't, you eye-rolling twat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2011)

campanula said:


> well, like many interested but politically naive people, I started to read this and am now falling over with ennui. Takes me back to tedious seminars on post-structuralism and other such opaque subjects at college (when at least it was (almost) free - if I had to pay 9 large ones to hear the same sort of rambling incoherent rubbish I reckon I would be disrobing, shouting out demons out or summat). And yes, I also paid subs to various left wing tribalists in the 70s and 80s, only to flounder about with yet more incomprehension. Well, I am sure these discussions are thrilling and enlivening to those in the know or who possess the relevant tools for understanding but god help us dimwits who just want some theoretical grounding in our political landscape, if only so we can inculcate our grandchildren that there is more to life than the Kardashians and X-factor. Pleased to say said grandaughter had her first taste of Occupy - takes me back to encircling the base at Greenham.



You found post-structuralism opaque?

How can you find the Emperor's new clothes opaque? They were transparent!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, you think that my post supports your point? It doesn't, you eye-rolling twat.


What point is that comrade?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 9, 2011)

okay I missed this one. Perhaps you could calm down, and explain to me how my English is bad.





ViolentPanda said:


> That isn't a yardstick, that's your perspective. A yardstick is an objective tool, not a subjective opinion.
> 
> That's hardly "revolutionary centric". Defining something as a "revolutionary centric viewpoint" merely because it places the BNP as "backwards" makes no sense, as it would then follow that anyone who despised the BNP's ideology as the crap it is would be "revolutionary centric".


I fully agree with you, that notions of revolutionary and political consciousness etc are a revolutionary perspective,I didn't mean to imply otherwise, that's what I meant by a revolutionary centric viewpoint.so I am acknowledging it is not an objective viewpoint IMPOV. What would have been a better way to phrase that?

now you seem to be saying that both the political compass, and the traditional left right spectrum are invalid yardsticks. Okay. So how do you measure the BNPs ideology, and decide they come up to the measurement of "crap"?

from my reading there seemed to be a contradiction in what you say. On the one hand you seem to be the saying, there is no difference backwards and forwards, higher and lower, crap and good, in ideologies. They are just different viewpoints.and then you seem to say the opposite. can you explain your views?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, you think that my post supports your point? It doesn't, you eye-rolling twat.


chill.
why is saying that the influences, the pressures, from the structures of UK capitalism touch everybody everywhere all of the time wrong? if this is wrong, where can I go in the UK where there will be no structural means of influence upon my consciousness? I read a newspaper, I have to struggle against its attempts to influence me. I listen to the news. I get a job. I pay my rent. etc.

Saying we suffer constant pressures from capitalism, which we have to struggle against, was not meant to deny agency. It didn't deny agency.if I were to deny agency, then you are right, the SWP couldn't exist, and nor could any other kind of resistance to capitalism, we would all just be like a capitalist borg.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 10, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> okay I missed this one. Perhaps you could calm down, and explain to me how my English is bad.
> I fully agree with you, that notions of revolutionary and political consciousness etc are a revolutionary perspective,I didn't mean to imply otherwise, that's what I meant by a revolutionary centric viewpoint.so I am acknowledging it is not an objective viewpoint IMPOV. What would have been a better way to phrase that?
> 
> now you seem to be saying that both the political compass, and the traditional left right spectrum are invalid yardsticks. Okay. So how do you measure the BNPs ideology, and decide they come up to the measurement of "crap"?
> ...



Can you see the difference between a measurement of distance and the allocation of moral worth? A yardstick does the former; a revolutionary perspective is premised on the latter. Trying to force ultimately moral choices into the same category as feet and inches has been tried and found wanting.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 10, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Can you see the difference between a measurement of distance and the allocation of moral worth? A yardstick does the former; a revolutionary perspective is premised on the latter. Trying to force ultimately moral choices into the same category as feet and inches has been tried and found wanting.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


thanks for that.

The question is, is there a difference between the politics of Nick Griffin, violent panda, and the political spectrum in between, that we can assess.

People much cleverer than me talk about levels of political and/or revolutionary consciousness. If you have a higher level of revolutionary consciousness, as does violent panda in my opinion, you have a higher consciousness of how society works, what the problems are, and what are the solutions, in a social evolutionary sense. If you have a really low level of consciousness, like Nick Griffin, you're quite the opposite, and offers solutions such as dictatorship which would be retrogressive in a social evolutionary sense. And between them to extremes you get people who accept progressive and regressive ideas, with contradictory levels of consciousness.

The notion that higher and lower levels of consciousness, is somehow elitist doesn't wash in my opinion. If I am out cold asleep in my bedroom with the television on, I have a low level of consciousness of what is taking place on the television. If I start waking, the items on the television can intermingle with my dreams, giving me a contradictory level of consciousness. Waking up, I become fully aware of what is happening, and have a higher level of consciousness.

How do we measure political/revolutionary/working-class consciousness? Different people measure in different ways. I'm not saying the measuring is objective, but just like violent panda measures the politics of Griffin to be crap, revolutionary socialists talk about levels of consciousness. Why shouldn't they?

Wasn't it CLR James who talked about the Chartist as been the first flowering working-class consciousness? He was right, in my opinion. For me the notion of consciousness has made understanding society easier, it is useful tooL. I am interested in why people object to so much.  I'm not saying people can't laugh and scorn such a notion, I'm asking for an explanation of why they laugh and scorn. But more importantly, if they do not use that tool, what do they put in its place.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2011)

> If you have a really low level of consciousness, like Nick Griffin, you're quite the opposite, and offers solutions such as dictatorship which would be retrogressive in a social evolutionary sense. And between them to extremes you get people who accept progressive and regressive ideas, with contradictory levels of consciousness.



nah, griffin's a twat but he certainly isn't unaware or stupid. and would you say cameron etc had a high or low level of class consciousness? i'd say their awareness of what benefits them as a class is pretty high tbh, even if they're utterly incompetent at carrying out their aims.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 10, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> nah, griffin's a twat but he certainly isn't unaware or stupid. and would you say cameron etc had a high or low level of class consciousness? i'd say their awareness of what benefits them as a class is pretty high tbh, even if they're utterly incompetent at carrying out their aims.


yes but there's a difference between working-class consciousness, political consciousness, and revolutionary consciousness. So whilst Griffin has a high level of political consciousness, he has a low level of revolutionary consciousness. His politics are counterrevolutionary politics, fascism. [just repeat read, what I said above, from that perspective.]


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2011)

would it benefit him, or the class he's in if there was a revolution tho? no. he's a pretty rich guy. and he's made a living through counterrevolutionary politics so he'd probably be first up against the wall and he knows it. he's aware of what a revolution would involve if it took place


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 10, 2011)

I think I need to explain my social evolutionary perspective.

As far as I'm concerned society has evolved, to increasingly more complex sets of social relations, which have been better able to satisfy human needs. First of all we had primitive communism of hunter gatherer societies. These were not complex at all, but they did not allow the greater stockpiling of wealth and knowledge beyond that which could literally be carried.

The first-class societies, slave societies, saw the first social relationships where some definable groups in society controlled the means of production, and could stockpile wealth and knowledge. Not only that, they could use this wealth to fund people who sole purpose was to increase the level of knowledge. [Some of which could be used to greater satisfy human needs.]

Feudalism built on the basis of above, but did slightly move away from the burden of slave ownership. If you own slave, it's a good idea to look after your property.

Capitalism moved right away from this, the workers not being the capitalist property, he could use and discard them at will. But there is a contradiction, even though in many ways capitalism can seem more barbaric, it has also been the most successful and satisfying human needs.

So in social evolutionary terms, Nick Griffin wanting to turn society back to a dictatorship, is not the same obviously, but it is retrogressive motion in the direction of feudalism, rather than going forward to a society based on production for human need rather than profit. If I had to choose between fascism, and capitalism, I would choose the latter.

I think this is the measure by which I would measure peoples levels of consciousness.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 10, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> would it benefit him, or the class he's in if there was a revolution tho? no. he's a pretty rich guy. and he's made a living through counterrevolutionary politics so he'd probably be first up against the wall and he knows it. he's aware of what a revolution would involve if it took place


the notion of revolutionary consciousness accept all that. He has a high level of political consciousness, from a fascist viewpoint. But he doesn't have a consciousness of the innate contradictions within capitalist society which cause it to going to boom and slump, for example, and which would be just as inherent in a fascist society. so he has a low level of revolutionary conscious, not a low level of political consciousness.


----------



## JimW (Nov 10, 2011)

"built on the basis of balls"  
/cheapshot


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 10, 2011)

JimW said:


> "built on the basis of balls"
> /cheapshot


only if you explain why. 

Why was CLR James talking balls When he described the Chartist as the first flowering working-class consciousness?


----------



## JimW (Nov 10, 2011)

You've had a sneaky edit!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 10, 2011)

JimW said:


> You've had a sneaky edit!


you didn't answer the question.


----------



## JimW (Nov 10, 2011)

Why should I? It's not something I claimed, I was getting in a crack about a typo, and said as much.

There is something up with "there's a difference between working-class consciousness, political consciousness, and revolutionary consciousness" to my mind; seems like an unnecessary division into external categories you're imposing from an exterior model that exists outside of the lived history.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 10, 2011)

JimW said:


> Why should I? It's not something I claimed, I was getting in a crack about a typo, and said as much.


It's a forum, people share their views. if you feel intimidated by the question, no worries. 



> There is something up with "there's a difference between working-class consciousness, political consciousness, and revolutionary consciousness" to my mind; seems like an unnecessary division into external categories you're imposing from an exterior model that exists outside of the lived history.


well thank fuck somebody has cleared all that up, at last.


----------



## JimW (Nov 10, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> It's a forum, people share their views. if you feel intimidated by the question, no worries.
> 
> <snip>



Your ability to argue like a cock is a bit intimidating, I do confess. How many moments of my life can I spare in one of your circular online paper sales?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 10, 2011)

JimW said:


> Your ability to argue like a cock is a bit intimidating, I do confess. How many moments of my life can I spare in one of your circular online paper sales?


it was a joke, hence


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> the notion of revolutionary consciousness accept all that. He has a high level of political consciousness, from a fascist viewpoint. But he doesn't have a consciousness of the innate contradictions within capitalist society which cause it to going to boom and slump, for example, and which would be just as inherent in a fascist society. so he has a low level of revolutionary conscious, not a low level of political consciousness.



the thing is though, i think he does. and i think cameron etc do too, but they view it as a good thing.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 10, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> the thing is though, i think he does. and i think cameron etc do too, but they view it as a good thing.


they are aware it happens, but they don't agree with Marx's explanations of the causes.


----------

