# Is there an underclass?



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

A lot of post-riot "analysis" (or what is trotted out in place of an analysis) focuses on the existence of a feral underclass, a minority of families that are totally excluded from society, different from the traditional organised working class.

Does such a (minority) underclass exist and if so when did it come into being?  What are its relation to the (majority) working class?  How is it different from the lumpen. elements identified for a couple of hundred years or more?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/dealing-with-the-renegades-revisited.279192/

FWIW, I think that the lib-dem and tory social policy is driven by a deraclialised set of bell curve assumptions about the existence of an underclass. As is your parties.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 22, 2011)

In a way I reckon they want there to _be_ an underclass, as if there is then yes it is a minority - far easier to come up with schemes to help a minority (extant or not) than to actually help the majority of people that are out of work and losing hopes for the future.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 22, 2011)

I think there could be an argument that those at the bottom of the heap income wise may be an underclass, in that their means are very limited and so they cannot properly participate in normal consumer society.

But that is not to equate an underclass with any breaking if the rules or laws.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think there could be an argument that those at the bottom of the heap income wise may be an underclass, in that their means are very limited and so they cannot properly participate in normal consumer society.
> 
> But that is not to equate an underclass with any breaking if the rules or laws.


 
I think it would be incorrect to include the working poor, and there are many, as being an 'underclass.'


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

To be frank, it would be unfair to use the term full stop. That already concedes the agenda to those who see the w/c as a problem full stop.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 22, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I think it would be incorrect to include the working poor, and there are many, as being an 'underclass.'



Depends what you think the word "underclass" actually means.

Define underclass?

Is it just another part of the class system - "upper, middle, working, under .... "


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 22, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I think it would be incorrect to include the working poor, and there are many, as being an 'underclass.'


They do, which is why being in receipt of tax credits and living in a poor area is enough to get your door kicked in now.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2011/jul-2011/dwp080-11.shtml




> Benefit cheats are being warned today that a new Mobile Regional Taskforce to combat fraud will be visiting their area.  This new team will target all high risk postcodes across the country re-examining claims for benefits and *Tax Credits*.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2011)

articul8 said:


> A lot of post-riot "analysis" (or what is trotted out in place of an analysis) focuses on the existence of a feral underclass, a minority of families that are totally excluded from society, different from the traditional organised working class.
> 
> Does such a (minority) underclass exist and if so when did it come into being? What are its relation to the (majority) working class? How is it different from the lumpen. elements identified for a couple of hundred years or more?


there is an underclass, it is brought out and hissed at after every riot (cf poll tax riot, 1990)


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Depends what you think the word "underclass" actually means.
> 
> Define underclass?
> 
> Is it just another part of the class system - "upper, middle, working, under .... "




That's the problem, that working class people can be termed in such a cast-the-net-wide and entirely negative way.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

I'm sure it's not just the working classes who are portrayed in a negative fashion


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2011)

Tony Blair thinks there is one. He carefully does not use the word:

This is a phenomenon of the late 20th century. You find it in virtually every developed nation. Breaking it down isn't about general policy or traditional programmes of investment or treatment. The last government should take real pride in the reductions in inequality, the improvement in many inner-city schools and the big fall in overall crime. But none of these reaches this special group.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/20/tony-blair-riots-crime-family

In his article he says that this "underclass" are not symptomatic of a wider society but they are the cause of the riots:

However, the big cause is the group of young, alienated, disaffected youth who are outside the social mainstream and who live in a culture at odds with any canons of proper behaviour. And here's where I don't agree with much of the commentary. In my experience, they are an absolutely specific problem that requires deeply specific solutions.
The left says they're victims of social deprivation, the right says they need to take personal responsibility for their actions; both just miss the point. A conventional social programme won't help them; neither – on their own – will tougher penalties.
The key is to understand that they aren't symptomatic of society at large. Failure to get this leads to a completely muddle-headed analysis.

The "underclass" therefore play a useful role for centre politicians like Blair. You can set up programmes of greater state surveillance and intervention on one specified group without looking at or dealing with issues like overall inequality. 

If an underclass do exist Blair isnt interested in how they came into being. His view is that its just something that exists in a lot of countries.

I dont see that much difference between this and Camerons view.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/dealing-with-the-renegades-revisited.279192/
> 
> FWIW, I think that the lib-dem and tory social policy is driven by a deraclialised set of bell curve assumptions about the existence of an underclass. As is your parties.



Actually I don't think the Labour partys' approach is ideological in the same way as the Tory and Liberal one. It's a mixture of frantic mirroring of the right and knee-jerk reactionary assumptions, they don't seem to have staked out an independent or original position at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Actually I don't think the Labour partys' approach is ideological in the same way as the Tory and Liberal one. It's a mixture of frantic mirroring of the right and knee-jerk reactionary assumptions, they don't seem to have staked out an independent or original position at all.


i think you mean they're 'triangulating'


----------



## weltweit (Aug 22, 2011)

I think most people when they use the word underclass, they actually mean criminals.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think most people when they use the word underclass, they actually mean criminals.


but you're not sure


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Actually I don't think the Labour partys' approach is ideological in the same way as the Tory and Liberal one. It's a mixture of frantic mirroring of the right and knee-jerk reactionary assumptions, they don't seem to have staked out an independent or original position at all.


I think their _poverty of aspiration_ agenda was on pretty naked display in their years in govt. Each one of of their now leading players has publicly supported it as well.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 22, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> but you're not sure



I can't speak for other people so this is just a feeling I have yes.

Underclass = criminality


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2011)

Whether there is an underclass or not its clear now that the rioting and looting was not done just by members of a "feral underclass".


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think most people when they use the word underclass, they actually mean criminals.


so those mps jailed for expenses fraud are members of the underclass


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think most people when they use the word underclass, they actually mean criminals.


I think you have to do something more than just be a criminal to join it.Be working
class without a job and either not want one or be unemployable.Add criminality or anti
social behavior and your nearer the mark.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 22, 2011)

and "feral"? When did it become legitimate to describe groups of human as "feral", ffs.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 22, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Whether there is an underclass or not its clear now that the rioting and looting was not done just by members of a "feral underclass".


Yeah but that's a bit inconvenient isn't it? Just like they actually weren't all teenagers from "broken homes".


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> and "feral"? When did it become legitimate to describe groups of human as "feral", ffs.


as long as i described politicians as feral, some time in the 1990s.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> To be frank, it would be unfair to use the term full stop. That already concedes the agenda to those who see the w/c as a problem full stop.



On the IWCA thread posted above (I haven't read the full piece yet- just the thread) there seems to be a degree of confusion/slippage between (new-)lumpens being outside the w/c and being a kind of renegade component of the w/c?  Which is it?

You agree with Blair re the phenomenon, but not on his classification or desire to de-couple it from society more generally?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

Who says that i agree with Blair (nice little rhetorical/polemical trick there)? Are you sure that you've read the thread and that you've managed to delineate posters from each other? Why not read the article as well? Very odd.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

Oh i certainly will read the article. But want to give it more attention than I can give it just now. Maybe you could clarify rather than objecting to efforts to characterise your position? Are the alienated elements "detritus" or part of the w/c?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

Are you under the impression that i wrote the article? I didn't. Are you under the impression that i'm some sort of spokesperson? I'm not. Who do you think you're asking here? I made clear _my_ agreements and disagreements with the article and my other related thoughts on the thread - which is why i find your questions now a little odd.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> and "feral"? When did it become legitimate to describe groups of human as "feral", ffs.


Mankind was once a feral species, I guess it refers to the loss of humanity in some sections of society, a regression, if you like.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Mankind was once a feral species, I guess it refers to the loss of humanity in some sections of society, a regression, if you like.


So which parts of society do you think are sub-human?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

I've no idea who wrote an article that I haven't yet read (other than the excerpts on the thread).  I've just asked you for clarification of your views on this phenomenon - and how this related to what the IWCA has published - in particular on the question of whether post-neo liberal w/c alienation is the same thing as traditional "lumpenisation" only in the latest garb.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So which parts of society do you think are sub-human?



I *guess* it refers to the loss of humanity in some sections of society


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

Well, you claim to have the thread - you clearly haven't. Or you wouldn't be feeding me utter garbage like this:
_You agree with Blair re the phenomenon, but not on his classification or desire to de-couple it from society more generally? _


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I *guess* it refers to the loss of humanity in some sections of society


*Which* sections?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> *Which* sections?


you


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Mankind was once a feral species, I guess it refers to the loss of humanity in some sections of society, a regression, if you like.



Yeah, I got that. Hence why I think its usage is out of order.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Yeah, I got that. Hence why I think its usage is out of order.



It's a loaded description to use, for sure. But it seems to have caught on amongst the politicians and sections of the media. Why is this? Is it easier to use than confront the reasons behind the current situation?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well, you claim to have the thread - you clearly haven't. Or you wouldn't be feeding me utter garbage like this:
> _You agree with Blair re the phenomenon, but not on his classification or desire to de-couple it from society more generally? _



I have read the thread.  What I meant (though understand why you recoil from the offensive comparison - for which I apologise) is that your position seems to be that this a new phenomenon specifically related to neoliberalism and, as such, is not just a quantitative increase in lumpenisation as traditionally understood by the left.

I will read the text in the OP.    I'd also be interested if you share the dismissive evaluation of some posters towards the SI analysis of the Watts riots?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> It's a loaded description to use, for sure. But it seems to have caught on amongst the politicians and sections of the media. Why is this? Is it easier to use than confront the reasons behind the current situation?


It's caught on because it's a vaguely respectable sounding way of expressing their real prejudices about the poor.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I have read the thread. What I meant (though understand why you recoil from the offensive comparison - for which I apologise) is that your position seems to be that this a new phenomenon specifically related to neoliberalism and, as such, is not just a quantitative increase in lumpenisation as traditionally understood by the left.
> 
> I will read the text in the OP. I'd also be interested if you share the dismissive evaluation of some posters towards the SI analysis of the Watts riots?


I said on the other thread that the last 35 years worth neo-liberal measures have _intensified_ pre-exisitng 'normal' alienation. In terms of its impact i think there is a large difference from before - when placed in the context of the near total breakdown of traditional forms of community solidarity and the sort of pressure releasing/co-opting mechanisms that used to exist any. So what we effectively have is the magnification of impact of limited actions or behaviours - not necessarily a rise in numbers of people involved.

As for the SI piece, i think the idea of a _commodity riot_ is still pretty useful.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> It's caught on because it's a vaguely respectable sounding way of expressing their real prejudices about the poor.


Assuming that all the poor are out being "feral" and what not


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Assuming that all the poor are out being "feral" and what not


there's a long history of the rich regarding the poor as animals, their neighbourhoods as jungles and such like.


----------



## JimW (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I said on the other thread that the last 35 years worth neo-liberal measures have _intensified_ pre-exisitng 'normal' alienation. In terms of its impact i think there is a large difference from before - when placed in the context of the near total breakdown of traditional forms of community solidarity and the sort of pressure releasing/co-opting mechanisms that used to exist any. So what we effectively have is the magnification of impact of limited actions or behaviours - not necessarily a rise in numbers of people involved.
> 
> As for the SI piece, i think the idea of a _commodity riot_ is still pretty useful.


Was going to say something similar - that it's a set of behaviours always there, maybe a bit more prevalent, that stand out more/got greater play in the absence of those other aspects of working class life that have borne the brunt of the attacks over the last few decades. But not been living in the country for years, so that's a view from a long way away.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> there's a long history of the rich regarding the poor as animals, their neighbourhoods as jungles and such like.



I'm sure there's an equally long history of the rich being regarded as scum and money hoarding tyrants oppressing all who stand in their way


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

JimW said:


> Was going to say something similar - that it's a set of behaviours always there, maybe a bit more prevalent, that stand out more/got greater play in the absence of those other aspects of working class life that have born the brunt of the attacks over the last few decades. But not been living in the country for years, so that's a view from a long way away.



And the thing is, there's a really damaging dynamic at play there, once you start down the path each next step re-inforces the previous fuck up.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

Not quite the same though is it? the people who assume that generally don't have any power, because they are poor.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm sure there's an equally long history of the rich being regarded as scum and money hoarding tyrants oppressing all who stand in their way


Yeah, but they _are_ scum. They're still human though. See the difference?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm sure there's an equally long history of the rich being regarded as scum and money hoarding tyrants oppressing all who stand in their way


like frogwoman said, the powerless resenting the powerful isn't the same as the powerful degrading the powerless.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, but they _are_ scum. They're still human though. See the difference?


 So, the rich are _all_ scum? Where do the middle classes fit on the urban scale of scummage?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> So, the rich are _all_ scum? Where do the middle classes fit on the urban scale of scummage?


half-scum, but still human. No go away and look to be bullied on another thread please.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 22, 2011)

"underclass" seems to be the new way to describe the working class these days. Maybe that wasn't what was initially intended, but it seems the way now. A bit like "chav".


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> half-scum, but still human. No go away and look to be bullied on another thread please.



Speaks a tyrant at heart


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

Fucking hell.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> So, the rich are _all_ scum? Where do the middle classes fit on the urban scale of scummage?


It's not where you come from, it's where you're going.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> It's not where you come from, it's where you're going.


 or is it, rather, how you get there?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 22, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> "underclass" seems to be the new way to describe the working class these days. Maybe that wasn't what was initially intended, but it seems the way now. A bit like "chav".


I don't think it's aimed at the working class as a whole tbh, it's a way the middle and upper classes make themselves feel like a majority of society. As in, there's "us" the people who have full-time jobs, mortgages and abide by the law, which stretches all the way from the wealthy down to what you used to be called "the respectable working classes" and then a fraction of society living in poverty, on the margins of criminality, dependent on the benevolence of the rest of us.

It's to distinguish the unworthy poor, from the worthy humble who are included in their narrative about the world. The excluded need fixing, either by liberalism (more, better "handouts") or authoritarianism (more effective sticks!).


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

i think what people forget is that the classes can change, up or down. my mum's got a mate who got extremely rich at one point off the stock market, but he racked up masses of debts at the same time due to his divorce and a few other things, and then he was diagnosed with MS and is now unable to work. he's got a huge house which he's been unable to sell for the last few years and is heavily in debt, and when he eventually sells his house he probably won't have enough money to live on, with not being able to work and that, and having to pay for home care. he's not working class, but he's not exactly fucking bourgeois either.

it isn't like race, "the fact the rich are rich isn't like a fact that's set in stone for all time. and the chances are if you've got that rich, you have fucked someone over along the way. you might have done if you're poor, too, but the higher up you go, the more your actions have consequences.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

JimW said:


> Was going to say something similar - that it's a set of behaviours always there, maybe a bit more prevalent, that stand out more/got greater play in the absence of those other aspects of working class life that have borne the brunt of the attacks over the last few decades.



Sure but isn't there a danger of conflating two different things - a) working class alienation and b) lumpenisation as described in Marx (rag-tag fragments of declassed elements)? a being more structural, b being more contingent?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> i think what people forget is that the classes can change, up or down. my mum's got a mate who got extremely rich at one point off the stock market, but he racked up masses of debts at the same time due to his divorce and a few other things, and then he was diagnosed with MS and is now unable to work. he's got a huge house which he's been unable to sell for the last few years and is heavily in debt, and when he eventually sells his house he probably won't have enough money to live on, with not being able to work and that, and having to pay for home care. he's not working class, but he's not exactly fucking bourgeois either.
> 
> it isn't like race, "the fact the rich are rich isn't like a fact that's set in stone for all time. and the chances are if you've got that rich, you have fucked someone over along the way. you might have done if you're poor, too, but the higher up you go, the more your actions have consequences.



Certainly there's rich who have fucked over less well off folk, just as there are poor who have fucked over rich folk. Be it in the financial sector or by knifepoint in the street.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

its not the same though is it? It really isn't


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> its not the same though is it? It really isn't


 Because some victims are more worthy than others?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Because some victims are more worthy than others?


Don't make this about you.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Certainly there's rich who have fucked over less well off folk, just as there are poor who have fucked over rich folk. Be it in the financial sector or by knifepoint in the street.



Truly your social analysis astounds us.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Don't make this about you.


You're the only whelk here making it about me, I'm asking frogwoman a valid question, so climb back into your gin soaked existence and never address me again.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Truly your social analysis astounds us.



Really? That's nice.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

do you really think that's true? if you are poor you have no power. that's not say you can't fuck people over, but your options are limited, and the impact it will have is also limited. if someone on benefits breaks into a very rich persons house and steals a tv, while it is horrible for a short time, and i'm not saying i agree with it, the rich person can just buy another tv in the end. but if rich people who run the country decide to do something that will push more people into crime, for example by closing a workplace and making lots of people lose their jobs, the people who have lost their jobs won't get their jobs back that easily, and they have taken a decision about society that the poor wouldn't ever have had the opportunity to take. so their actions have serious consequences, which get worse the bigger decisions they get the opportunity to make, and the more people they will affect. do you understand what im getting at?


----------



## JimW (Aug 22, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Sure but isn't there a danger of conflating two different things - a) working class alienation and b) lumpenisation as described in Marx (rag-tag fragments of declassed elements)? a being more structural, b being more contingent?


Not sure it is two different things - I'd guess this is more like seeing the process in action as the two are going to be linked. And my sense is that the absences aren't just down to alienation but to attacks that have broken pre=existing solidarities, be it through removing shared employment, housing and the rest.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Because some victims are more worthy than others?



NO !!! ffs do you not understand, are you deliberately being thick or something?

if a poor person mugs a rich person in the street, that's horrible, nobody deserves to be mugged. but do you not understand that the richer you become, the more powerful and influential you become on society?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> do you really think that's true? if you are poor you have no power. that's not say you can't fuck people over, but your options are limited, and the impact it will have is also limited. if someone on benefits breaks into a very rich persons house and steals a tv, while it is horrible for a short time, and i'm not saying i agree with it, the rich person can just buy another tv in the end. but if rich people who run the country decide to do something that will push more people into crime, for example by closing a workplace and making lots of people lose their jobs, the people who have lost their jobs won't get their jobs back that easily, and they have taken a decision about society that the poor wouldn't ever have had the opportunity to take. so their actions have serious consequences, which get worse the bigger decisions they get the opportunity to make, and the more people they will affect. do you understand what im getting at?



I understand what you're getting at. But isn't saying the poor are powerless a bit patronising to said poor? Job redundancies are sad and undesirable but does that automatically push people into criminal acts?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> NO !!! ffs do you not understand, are you *deliberately being thick* or something?



I'd have expected better of you, to fall back on the standard haughty response, frogwoman.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 22, 2011)

FfFS


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I understand what you're getting at. But isn't saying the poor are powerless a bit patronising to said poor? Job redundancies are sad and undesirable but does that automatically push people into criminal acts?


Eh? The poor, individually, are relatively powerless over the rich. That doesn't mean they don't have life choices or personal responsibility for their actions. It just means that the repercussions of their actions impact on far fewer people.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I understand what you're getting at. But isn't saying the poor are powerless a bit patronising to said poor? Job redundancies are sad and undesirable but does that automatically push people into criminal acts?



NO ffs its not patronising, its just a fact, because the poor aren't powerful, who makes the decisions about society, who owns the large businesses, who makes the decisions about what those businesses will do, what the government will do, and what the money will be invested in? it's not some guy in a housing estate in tottenham is it. I'm also not saying that the poor will be pushed into crime due to job redundancies ffs. i'm saying that the job redundancies have consequences for society, and one person on a housing estate or on benefits isn't going to be making decisions about that are they.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I'd have expected better of you, to fall back on the standard haughty response, frogwoman.



It's not a haughty response, im actually confused as to why you're not getting it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Eh? The poor, individually, are relatively powerless over the rich. That doesn't mean they don't have life choices or personal responsibility for their actions. It just means that the repercussions of their actions impact on far fewer people.


If we're talking about individuals, I'd say one individual murdering another has widespread repercussions. But I fear I'm straying here.

So, to recap - there's no underclass, no ferals, no chavs, no scum. That should pertain to all levels of your caste sytem or whatever you call it, no?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> It's not a haughty response, im actually confused as to why you're not getting it.


I get it but I don't follow that what you say is gospel, in the same way that I don't follow what Cameron et al say is gospel.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 22, 2011)

dylanredefined said:


> I think you have to do something more than just be a criminal to join it.Be working
> class without a job and either not want one or be unemployable.Add criminality or anti
> social behavior and your nearer the mark.



yes


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Mankind was once a feral species, I guess it refers to the loss of humanity in some sections of society, a regression, if you like.


What do you mean by this?

tbh the whole idea of 'feral' is a nonsense. Animals that live in social groups live by rules that govern their responsibilities towards the group and the group's responsibilities towards them. That applies just as much to a pack of dogs, a herd of elephants, or a colony of ants as it does to a society of humans.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

Huh, surely it's just common sense that poor people don't own businesses, they aren't sitting in the cabinet making decisions, they aren't in corporate boardrooms, they don't have - for example - masses of links with private healthcare companies (except possibly if they work for those companies) for example, they aren't massively insulated through a huge bureaucratic superstructure which (most of the time) insulates them from getting in trouble - see murdoch et al. i'm not saying social mobility (upwards and downwards) doesn't happen, in fact i've given an example of downwards social mobility on this thread. but if you think that with more resources doesn't come more power, then i'm sorry but you're fucking deluded


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> but if you think that with more resources doesn't come more power, then i'm sorry but *you're fucking deluded*



This is why the left irritates me _almost_ as much as the right


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I understand what you're getting at. But isn't saying the poor are powerless a bit patronising to said poor? Job redundancies are sad and undesirable but does that automatically push people into criminal acts?


power is defined by max weber as authority, status and influence. which of those three categories would you say the poor possess that gives them power?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> This is why the left irritates me _almost_ as much as the right


what, because both left and right recognise that you're deluded?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> If we're talking about individuals, I'd say one individual murdering another has widespread repercussions. But I fear I'm straying here.
> 
> So, to recap - there's no underclass, no ferals, no chavs, no scum. That should pertain to all levels of your caste sytem or whatever you call it, no?



if i murdered someone, i'd go to jail.(and i'm not exactly poor, lol.)
if david cameron murdered someone do you think he'd go to jail - or at least, to the same type of jail?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> This is why the left irritates me _almost_ as much as the right



why is it so hard for you to grasp? poor people aren't sitting on corporate boardrooms making decisions about what the company is going to produce, what people to employ, what people to fire, etc. poor people aren't owning billion-dollar media empires and authorising hacking into dead girls' phones. if they did those things they WOULDNT BE POOR WOULD THEY?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> what, because both left and right recognise that you're deluded?


No because you're a preachy, moralising, self-serving, holier than thou bunch. And; anyone who doesn't buy into your spiel is thick/stupid/deluded/tory cunt and so on ad nauseum. Yawn.

I've seen better arguments in the bottom of a fish tank.
There are exceptions of course and Frogwoman (until 5 mins ago!), Lo Siento and certain others are able to get the message across without recourse to fuckwittery on a grand scale.

Yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

Let's ignore jesus today shall we? Possibility of an interesting thread here.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> If we're talking about individuals, I'd say one individual murdering another has widespread repercussions. But I fear I'm straying here.



You are, and it's subjective. In the way that most people live our lives, the repercussions of decisions made by the political class and the financial elite clearly have more repercussion across society and on more individuals than decisions made by murderers.



> So, to recap - there's no underclass, no ferals, no chavs, no scum. That should pertain to all levels of your caste sytem or whatever you call it, no?



As a "class", no, there's no logically coherent way of defining an "underclass", not as in any kind of relationship within any other social class. Clearly there's no such thing as a "feral" human living in an inner city. In fact, by definition, it can't exist, all humans in contact with human societies cease to be natural or wild. Chavs clearly don't "exist" any more than as certain people fulfilling certain stereotypes and certain prejudices. Scum is just a pejorative aimed at people you don't like, it can't be a category.

None of them strike me as very helpful for understanding how our society works, so no.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> why is it so hard for you to grasp? poor people aren't sitting on corporate boardrooms making decisions about what the company is going to produce, what people to employ, what people to fire, etc. poor people aren't owning billion-dollar media empires and authorising hacking into dead girls' phones. if they did those things they WOULDNT BE POOR WOULD THEY?



Swap one bunch of undesirables for another, you mean? Sometimes I think urban has a "poor" fetish that blocks out any other ideas...


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Let's ignore jesus today shall we? Possibility of an interesting thread here.


You might have noticed, Frank, that you've been told where to go. How about giving me the chance to hoist myself by my own petard, as it were, without your feeble attempts to surpress my right to be a tool at every given opportunity?

Now, fuck off and leave this to the experts and miscreants.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

articul8 said:


> A lot of post-riot "analysis" (or what is trotted out in place of an analysis) focuses on the existence of a feral underclass, a minority of families that are totally excluded from society, different from the traditional organised working class.
> 
> Does such a (minority) underclass exist and if so when did it come into being? What are its relation to the (majority) working class? How is it different from the lumpen. elements identified for a couple of hundred years or more?



By creating a discourse involving the existence of a "feral underclass", the commentators bring it into existence as a category that can then handily be stuffed with any elements of humanity they wish to include in it.
if you're asking purely if there's a historical antecedent for such a "feral underclass" then we know that the Victorians constituted their own, which they termed "the residuum" - supposedly unemployable criminal-types who inhabited the rookeries and tenements - and for whom they formulated many of the less gratifying sort of "social engineering" plans that we now call "eugenics".

Were/are they different from a "traditional working class"? What is "traditional working class"? We need only read "The Condition of the Working Class in England" to assure ourselves that the environment attributed to this feral unemployable underclass, then as now, pertained across "the traditional working class", and that perhaps a majority of working class households "got by" by supplementing (unstable) earned income with the proceeds of criminality.

Capitalism benefits if it can create the idea of an unemployable classs, because it can then stigmatise anyone who doesn't or can't work, and distance itself from any responsibility for and to such people as it has stigmatised.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> You might have noticed, Frank, that you've been told where to go. How about giving me the chance to hoist myself by my own petard, as it were, without your feeble attempts to surpress my right to be a tool at every given opportunity?
> 
> Now, fuck off and leave this to the experts and miscreants.


now, about this power thing you were on about...


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2011)

articul8 said:


> On the IWCA thread posted above (I haven't read the full piece yet- just the thread) there seems to be a degree of confusion/slippage between (new-)lumpens being outside the w/c and being a kind of renegade component of the w/c? Which is it?
> 
> You agree with Blair re the phenomenon, but not on his classification or desire to de-couple it from society more generally?



Having read the IWCA article they dont account for the working class who just look out for themselves and there families and who proudly tell me that as well. Usually the ones who bought there Council house un RTB. This respectable section of the W/C dont have the W/C solidarity or sense of community that IWCA recognise either.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 22, 2011)

dictionary.com definition of feral, btw



> adjective
> 1.existing in a natural state, as animals or plants; not domesticated or cultivated; wild.
> 2.having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication: a pack of feral dogs roaming the woods.
> 3.of or characteristic of wild animals; ferocious; brutal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm sure it's not just the working classes who are portrayed in a negative fashion



I'll admit that the middle and upper classes are portrayed negatively on these boards, and perhaps in _The Morning Star[/b], but that hardly compares with the negative portrayals of the working classes common to both print and broadcast media._


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

wtf?no, that's not what i'm saying at all. i don't mean to become nasty, but sometimes arguing with you is so tiresome because it just seems as though you're deliberately not understanding this stuff and misconstruing things to mean that people have said something different from what they have said.

the idea of marxism (or anarchism for that matter) isnt to put some other people at the top of these billion pound empires and to let them become rich instead of the initial rich people. surely it's not rocket science that with money comes power? and i'm not even necessarily saying that's always a bad thing, since in capitalism it means that say, a teacher, which is a relatively well paid job, is able to use their disposable income to, for example, donate money to charity or go on holiday or do lots of other things, it means that you are able to buy a better quality of life the more money you have. it also means that you have a higher social status, and that you will probably be listened to more, and you can make decisions which - up to a point - affect individual kids' education.
however if you're a teacher -and even a headteacher you still don't own the means of production. you're not sitting on the advisory boards to the government or in the cabinet making decisions about education. you are still a worker, you're there to impliment the decisions that other people have made. so in that sense, while you have more power than someone who's in a worse job or in no job at all, you've still not got much in the way of power. you aren't deciding that say, mcdonalds can have a contract to run a school, or that a private education company can do so. you aren't deciding that you want the school to be an academy - you have very little choice in that, unless you and other teachers decide, collectively, to go on strike about it.if you are rich and in a position where you can decide these things, however, that is a different story.

do you understand a bit better now?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2011)

The existence of a welfare state limits the possibility of a genuine underclass. Many of the long-term unemployed may well be playing games with the dole and have no intention of getting a job, but their money does depend on them playing this game and so participating, or at least pretending to participate, in the system.

The fact that everyone can claim money itself raises them above the status of a true underclass.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Mankind was once a feral species, I guess it refers to the loss of humanity in some sections of society, a regression, if you like.



Interesting that you class a supposed fading of the veneer of civilisation with a "loss of humanity".

Interesting in its ignorance, that is.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Were/are they different from a "traditional working class"? What is "traditional working class"? We need only read "The Condition of the Working Class in England" to assure ourselves that the environment attributed to this feral unemployable underclass, then as now, pertained across "the traditional working class", and that perhaps a majority of working class households "got by" by supplementing (unstable) earned income with the proceeds of criminality.
> 
> Capitalism benefits if it can create the idea of an unemployable classs, because it can then stigmatise anyone who doesn't or can't work, and distance itself from any responsibility for and to such people as it has stigmatised.



Correct.

Also I remember , years ago, working with old former London dockers. There attitude to work was that everyone should try to get work. They didnt approve of signing on. However they also would regale me with tales of how they used to pilfer goods from the docks. This was considered , in there working class communities,as perfectly acceptable. To the point where they didnt consider it stealing. They considered themselves to be respectable working class.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> dictionary.com definition of feral, btw


Not that dictionary definitions matter much, but the only really valid definition there - valid as in referring to something that actually exists as described - is the one that distinguishes between wild and domestic individuals from domesticated species.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Speaks a tyrant at heart



Your constant attempts at martyrdom are seriously beginning to boil my piss.
Poor little Jer doesn't like people not being polite to him.

Well tough fucking luck!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 22, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Correct.
> 
> Also I remember , years ago, working with old former London dockers. There attitude to work was that everyone should try to get work. They didnt approve of signing on. However they also would regale me with tales of how they used to pilfer goods from the docks. This was considered , in there working class communities,as perfectly acceptable. To the point where they didnt consider it stealing. They considered themselves to be respectable working class.


Slightly tangential but I've heard similar tales in relation to buddhist monks in temples in thailand and other places - apparently (and I certainly don't claim this as 100% true given it's recounted by someone else) they regularly thieve from tourists as a way of bolstering inadequate incomes and see this as something that is more than compatible with the implied moral vows and ethics that come from being a monk.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> its not the same though is it? It really isn't



Unless you're some kind of liberal who sees equivalence between several thousand years of ruthless exploitation and a relative handful of acts of armed theft on the other.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not that dictionary definitions matter much, but the only really valid definition there - valid as in referring to something that actually exists as described - is the one that distinguishes between wild and domestic individuals from domesticated species.


It's dehumanizing. It says they are animals and their behaviour does not need to be explained, we must simply reach for the shotgun to defend the homestead.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Don't make this about you.



Better to ask the rain not to fall, or the clouds to be still.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 22, 2011)

Well, if government believe there is an underclass, and they want to target policies at it, they at least must have a clear definition of what it is and how many people there are in it.

Marketeers would likely not be so interested in it because it sounds like the underclass are not exactly consumers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> NO !!! ffs do you not understand, are you deliberately being thick or something?
> 
> if a poor person mugs a rich person in the street, that's horrible, nobody deserves to be mugged. but do you not understand that the richer you become, the more powerful and influential you become on society?



And the greater access you have to power and influence to bolster your own.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> It's dehumanizing. It says they are animals and their behaviour does not need to be explained, we must simply reach for the shotgun to defend the homestead.


Yes, it does. And clearly this is what Blair believes too - so much for the 'tough on the causes of crime' bit of one of his previous slogans. But its misunderstanding of how humans are different from other animals and how we are similar is also revealing, I think - it is not far off saying that these are humans that have strayed from the godly path. No wonder Blair's so keen on the idea.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Well, if government believe there is an underclass, and they want to target policies at it, they at least must have a clear definition of what it is and how many people there are in it.
> 
> Marketeers would likely not be so interested in it because it sounds like the underclass are not exactly consumers.


If the other thread is correct  a 100 000 families have already been identified by one of the govts rip-off agencies. On what basis we can only _guess_.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The existence of a welfare state limits the possibility of a genuine underclass. Many of the long-term unemployed may well be playing games with the dole and have no intention of getting a job, but their money does depend on them playing this game and so participating, or at least pretending to participate, in the system.
> 
> The fact that everyone can claim money itself raises them above the status of a true underclass.


Does it really though? Living on £70 a week, usually in sub-standard housing, cut off from almost all "normal" societal interactions. I'm not sure that looking for these kind of distinctions actually serves much purpose, other than offering a platform for Shiny Dave to start spouting about family intervention projects that have been around for years but have been chronically underfunded/resourced.

Further, there are those who would say that the welfare state is why we have an underclass, rather than a reason why we don't. I'd prefer to point out that the welfare state maybe offers some opportunity to begin to level the playing fields somewhat and certainly has value as a means to reduce the possibility of an underclass perpetuating, however it is defined.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2011)

must they? Your faith in the coherency of thought by our leaders is touching.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 22, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Does it really though? Living on £70 a week, usually in sub-standard housing, cut off from almost all "normal" societal interactions. I'm not sure that looking for these kind of distinctions actually serves much purpose, other than offering a platform for Shiny Dave to start spouting about family intervention projects that have been around for years but have been chronically underfunded/resourced.
> 
> Further, there are those who would say that the welfare state is why we have an underclass, rather than a reason why we don't. I'd prefer to point out that the welfare state maybe offers some opportunity to begin to level the playing fields somewhat and certainly has value as a means to reduce the possibility of an underclass perpetuating, however it is defined.


Yes they do blame the welfare state for "the underclass" as they see it. Problem was people have been fretting about it well before the welfare state and I guess they'll carry on well after it as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2011)

any state which has flogged off a fuck load of playing fields is unlikely to believe in playing fields, let alone level playing fields.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> If the other thread is correct (edit in here] a 100 000 families have already been identified by one of the govts rip-off agencies. On what basis we can only _guess_.


It's a 120,000 families, and that utter cunt Harrison from A4E is the figurehead that Shiny Dave wants to drive forward the programme of putting them back on the right track. She was interviewed on 5live yesterday morning by Anita Arnand, who was surprisingly good at repetedly asking her how her approach could succeed in a shrinking economy, with Harrison resorting to saying "but your local shops must have some vacancies"...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2011)

Well that's my point, pauli: the welfare state is supposed to be - and is to an extent - an inclusive force, to give everyone a place in society, even the unemployed. There is only an underclass to the extent that the welfare state is failing, imo.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 22, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> It's a 120,000 families, and that utter cunt Harrison from A4E is the figurehead that Shiny Dave wants to drive forward the programme of putting them back on the right track. She was interviewed on 5live yesterday morning by Anita Arnand, who was surprisingly good at repetedly asking her how her approach could succeed in a shrinking economy, with Harrison resorting to saying "but your local shops must have some vacancies"...


Oh wow that is utterly pathetic isn't it?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

thing is there's probably more of an underclass where they dont have much of a welfare state to speak of ...


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 22, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> thing is there's probably more of an underclass where they dont have much of a welfare state to speak of ...


Yeah but that conveniently gets ignored.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> dictionary.com definition of feral, btw



interesting.  People acting like wild creatures, as though society didn't exist.  Which is just what Thatcher told them.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 22, 2011)

why hasn't the recession killed the "voluntarily unemployed" myth yet? Do they think there was a sudden outbreak in laziness in 2008 or what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> why hasn't the recession killed the "voluntarily unemployed" myth yet? Do they think there was a sudden outbreak in laziness in 2008 or what?


because you can't kill a myth


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The existence of a welfare state limits the possibility of a genuine underclass. Many of the long-term unemployed may well be playing games with the dole and have no intention of getting a job, but their money does depend on them playing this game and so participating, or at least pretending to participate, in the system.
> 
> The fact that everyone can claim money itself raises them above the status of a true underclass.



I don't believe you can equate the *potential* ability to claim money to raising people above the status of an underclass.

Because that's what it is - a potential rather than a given, even for those benefits it's seemingly easy to claim. It would be more apt to claim that because the ability to  claim is merely potential, needing reinforcement via welfare advisors etc (the number of whom are funded having just been cut massively), the creation or perpetuation of an "underclass" is ensured.


----------



## treelover (Aug 22, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> By creating a discourse involving the existence of a "feral underclass", the commentators bring it into existence as a category that can then handily be stuffed with any elements of humanity they wish to include in it.
> if you're asking purely if there's a historical antecedent for such a "feral underclass" then we know that the Victorians constituted their own, which they termed "the residuum" - supposedly unemployable criminal-types who inhabited the rookeries and tenements - and for whom they formulated many of the less gratifying sort of "social engineering" plans that we now call "eugenics".
> 
> Were/are they different from a "traditional working class"? What is "traditional working class"? We need only read "The Condition of the Working Class in England" to assure ourselves that the environment attributed to this feral unemployable underclass, then as now, pertained across "the traditional working class", and that perhaps a majority of working class households "got by" by supplementing (unstable) earned income with the proceeds of criminality.
> ...



Good point, using the term 'underclass' is ultimately a dangerous option(and yes I have used it here on occassions) and falls into the hands of the Right and NL who want to identify and make visible a significant portion of Uk society who they can then demonise and target. Going back to V/P's post, one can look at the Workhouses to see how what they were originally designed for changed over time as they were institutionalised and buracraucatised(sic), they soon became 'warehouses' for all the sort of people the Victorians didn't like or who couldn't or wouldn't conform to Victorian norms, hypocritical as they were. In many ways, anyone who opposed order. Focualt traces it even back to 'The Great Confinement in the 17th C and the notion that ''those who did not work were the essence of unreason. Into this frame came the petty criminals, the vagabonds and beggars, the idlers, One can be sure that any policy emanitating from these notions will soon include disabled people and the wider unemployed, in other words this definition of an underclass is very mallaeable and will change over time and the needs of the establishment, etc...

btw, if anyone has any grandparent or more likely now great grandparents of working class origin, ask them about their familes fear of the Workhouse..


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 22, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Oh wow that is utterly pathetic isn't it?


it was cringy. she spouted the same old bollocks about meeting a family last week, who she suggested might want to go and volunteer with a bloke who needed some help who was down the road, and they said to her "but we're scum Emma, no-one likes us" but she said try it and so they did and by the end of the day, they were all in floods of tears as they realised what an asset they were to their community and how a little goes a long way etc etc etc.

i've heard her deliver about 100 variations of the same ludicrous tale, as she pockets millions of £££'s for the Work Programme, the Money Advice Service and now the Family Intervention Project or whatever it will be christened.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2011)

Yeah, maybe, vp. Certainly, I favour the replacing of the dole with a citizen's wage, for all kinds of reasons, including the one you highlight. I still say that a welfare state limits the scope for an underclass. Compare and contrast to countries without a welfare state, where it really is possible to be excluded from all society's structures even with the will to join in with them.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> why hasn't the recession killed the "voluntarily unemployed" myth yet? Do they think there was a sudden outbreak in laziness in 2008 or what?


Like the myth that council housing is subsidized and single mums all get pregnant to be given council houses.


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 22, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> if i murdered someone, i'd go to jail.(and i'm not exactly poor, lol.)
> if david cameron murdered someone do you think he'd go to jail - or at least, to the same type of jail?


         Depends if he flips out and stabs clegg to death yeah jail.
 If he decides someone really needs killing and can justify it to the military can probably get away with it.Far too many people eager to stick their hands up when asked "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest"


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

dylanredefined said:


> Depends if he flips out and stabs clegg to death yeah jail.
> If he decides someone really needs killing and can justify it to the military can probably get away with it.Far too many people eager to stick their hands up when asked "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest"



He, in all likelihood, wouldn't flip out and stab clegg to death - it's highly unlikely lol. for a start there are far more mechanisms in place to ensure that doesn't happen, there are probably people monitoring him all the time to make sure he doesn't do that. what i mean is that like if he decided someone had to go, then they would go, and he probably wouldn't get in trouble for it. or if he secretly killed someone on the way home from work, it would be covered up in no time.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2011)

He has no reason to murderate clegg, he keeps him as his gimp. Now clegg murdering Cameron by choking him with a 'no to AV' leaflet would be a possibility


----------



## A380 (Aug 22, 2011)

There are of course criminals in every class. Ie people who think only of themselves and bugger the hurt to everyone else. The crimes are, of course, different (and in the case of the  very rich  not on the statute book and so never punished (because they own the legislature and executive and heavily influence the judiciary (is obvious innit)). 
There is only a small percentage of real criminals doing the below in each class (although that percentage may increase as you go 'up' the class system?):
Long term (or multi generation) unemployed - Burglary and robbery
Working Class - handling stolen  goods benefit fraud
Lower to middle middle class - tax fraud, insurance scams, expenses fraud
Upper middle class tax evasion and stealing all the money from the banking system...
Upper class aristocracy - living off the  land stolen over the last 1000 years or so and making no contribution to the rest of us.
(of course recreational violence and sexual crimes are committed across the scale...)
I think the underclass is that criminal percentage of people who are long term (or multi generation) unemployed and of course they exist which is why we need to lock our houses up when we go out; fuckers.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2011)

If he did murder someone though he almost certainly wouldn't go to jail though.


----------



## treelover (Aug 22, 2011)

Harrison is one of the main beneficiaries of the neo-liberal epoch, which began with her father who set up Sheffield Steelworkers Training for unemployed S/W's of which there were many...


----------



## treelover (Aug 22, 2011)

btw, I wonder if soon we will have the discredited theories of Ricardo and co wheeled out again..


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 22, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Having read the IWCA article they dont account for the working class who just look out for themselves and there families and who proudly tell me that as well. *Usually the ones who bought there Council house un RTB.* This respectable section of the W/C dont have the W/C solidarity or sense of community that IWCA recognise either.



For many council tenants, given the level of discounts being offered, the opening up of credit and the ratcheting up of rents, it was a matter of necessity rather than greed or selfishness. The residualisation of council housing was not the fault of those who bought their flats and houses; the blame for it lies squarely at the door of those who encouraged renters to become debtors and who effectively outlawed reinvestment in council housing.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 22, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> For many council tenants, given the level of discounts being offered, the opening up of credit and the ratcheting up of rents, it was a matter of necessity rather than greed or selfishness. The residualisation of council housing was not the fault of those who bought their flats and houses; the blame for it lies squarely at the door of those who encouraged renters to become debtors and who effectively outlawed reinvestment in council housing.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


Selling council houses might have been okay if they were forced to replace each one they sold with a new one, altho this was explicitly not allowed. Also it'd have pushed the prices of the houses up, I think.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

Spot on L-M and you, exactly why CH is now see as being for the poor rather than an active commitment form society to provide the means of subsistence. It was the blocking off of new builds that really hurt.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 22, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> This is why the left irritates me _almost_ as much as the right


Let me spell this out; it is about CLASS, and CAPITALISM; we have a ruling class who fuck over me, you, froggy - EVERY SINGLE ONE of us economically working-class people every single day; it is intrinsic to their being, and it fucks the lifestyle and life chances of everyone who does not belong to that class, and it does so on a massively grand scale. Nothing any individual rioter did could ever hope to even come close to that, in terms of the very real damage done to people's lives.
a thieving little 'underclass' scrote robs me of my moby. So what? i'll go and buy another one, they're cheap as chips.
vodafone's tax-avoidance antics robs the exchecquer of billions of pounds that could have done so much good, ditto Phillip Greens offshoring all his acciunts via his wife.
Do you see this massive difference?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 22, 2011)

So... who is underclass on this thread?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Selling council houses might have been okay if they were forced to replace each one they sold with a new one, altho this was explicitly not allowed. Also it'd have pushed the prices of the houses up, I think.





butchersapron said:


> Spot on L-M and you, exactly why CH is now see as being *for the poor rather than an active commitment form society* to provide the means of subsistence. It was the blocking off of new builds that really hurt.


Absolutely. The bold bit is crucial - that policy fundamentally changed the idea of social housing. Ironically, a lot of council houses that were sold in rtb are now turning up on the housing market in places like London for 3,4 or even 500k. Why? Because - contrary to the propaganda - they were built to high standards. They're good houses.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So... who is underclass on this thread?



Oh god, he's found us. Hello clouds bye bye thread.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 22, 2011)

are you underclass, butchers?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 22, 2011)

My own tuppence is that it is hard to describe someone as "working class" if there is no propsect and / or intention of them ever selling their labour. But black/grey market activities would constitute a sale of labour.

What is even more disturbing than any growth and consolidation of any "underclass" is the relative depoliticisation of all classes below the bourgoise (who were never neccessarily that politicised anyway beyond conservative attitudes).

Sorry to say, but this has to be partly down to a big failure of the left tied to the rightward drift of Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> My own tuppence is that it is hard to describe someone as "working class" if there is no propsect and / or intention of them ever selling their labour. But black/grey market activities would constitute a sale of labour.
> 
> What is even more disturbing than any growth and consolidation of any "underclass" is the relative depoliticisation of all classes below the bourgoise (who were never neccessarily that politicised anyway beyond conservative attitudes).
> 
> Sorry to say, but this has to be partly down to a big failure of the left tied to the rightward drift of Labour.


You cannot be depoliticised fullstop. It's impossible.  All there is a non fitting of what formal politics is. This is politics - politics as how society is run by who and how. This IS politics.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 22, 2011)

OK Butchers. Let me put it this way: there is less overt political expression, more alienation from the political process. More chance of someone saying "I'm not interested in politics" - an essentially conservative position of course.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

By political you mean less people working with the formal state recognised political process? Rejecting that position that is neither conservative or revolutionary but has more to offer people who don't want the system. If you'd like to argue why rejection of the status quo is inherently conservative then please, be my guest.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Absolutely. The bold bit is crucial - that policy fundamentally changed the idea of social housing. Ironically, a lot of council houses that were sold in rtb are now turning up on the housing market in places like London for 3,4 or even 500k. Why? Because - contrary to the propaganda - they were built to high standards. *They're good houses*.


The ones in Leeds aren't! Still some private rentals can be shocking as well.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> By political you mean less people working with the formal state recognised political process? Rejecting that position that is neither conservative or revolutionary but has more to offer people who don't want the system. If you'd like to argue why rejection of the status quo is inherently conservative then please, be my guest.



Because there is no alternative programme that I can sense. There is too much of "they're all the same, it's all bollocks" but it is not said in any kind of revolutionary sense, it is a nihilistic apathetic sense. It is a gift to the status quo, not a danger to it.

By less political I don't (just) mean people less working within the state recognised political process. I mean less political. Overall. Product of individualisation.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

That is as political as you can get. Don't measure it by green votes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> The ones in Leeds aren't! Still some private rentals can be shocking as well.


Bad housing was built, particularly post-war with the necessity to rebuild rapidly. And some of the worst tower blocks are already being pulled down. But often I hear people slagging off social housing on the basis that the state is incapable of delivering quality. And that is not true. A lot of council housing was built that was required to meet higher standards than private buildings. Equally, today, some of the best flats are being built by housing associations, not by private firms. It's another enduring fallacy that the state sector cannot deliver high quality work.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's another enduring fallacy that the state sector cannot deliver high quality work.



^^^This, in  Nottingham they refurbished some of the worst blocks in one of the worst areas (When they decided to refurb them they were so undesirable that only a few people lived in each tower, and most of the electrics and pipework had been looted). These have now been refurbished with a facelift, working heating, double glazing, and a well equipped kiddy play park next door.

It's made a massive difference, the flats are now desirable and have a low vacancy rate, everything works, and you don't feel in danger walking the corridors.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2011)

A similar thing has been done to the estates around King's Cross in London. It's made a massive difference there too.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god, he's found us. Hello clouds bye bye thread.



The thread tyrant speaks


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 22, 2011)

He's not a thread tyrant. He's a not very naughty boy...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So... who is underclass on this thread?



Economically and geographically, I am. Educationally and socially I'm not. It's not a simple quaestion, although the pols would have us believe otherwise.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 22, 2011)

I qualify as underclass too. Yay me.

But I haven't been sent my complimentary hoodie yet. Perhaps there's a priority for the first 120,000 dysfunctional families?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 22, 2011)

This isn't going to be another thread ruined by krtek?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I qualify as underclass too. Yay me.
> 
> But I haven't been sent my complimentary hoodie yet. Perhaps there's a priority for the first 120,000 dysfunctional families?



There are no complimentary hoodies left, just some really unflattering ones, I'm afraid.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Bad housing was built, particularly post-war with the necessity to rebuild rapidly. And some of the worst tower blocks are already being pulled down. But often I hear people slagging off social housing on the basis that the state is incapable of delivering quality. And that is not true. A lot of council housing was built that was required to meet higher standards than private buildings. Equally, today, some of the best flats are being built by housing associations, not by private firms. It's another enduring fallacy that the state sector cannot deliver high quality work.


it's true, our squatted red brick council flat on haggerston was far superior in build quality than our current HA "shared ownership" place.

why they stopped LA's reinvesting money from sold stock into more social housing is the curiousity to me.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 22, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> This isn't going to be another thread ruined by krtek?



He has as much right to ruin a thread as anyone else.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 22, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> There are no complimentary hoodies left, just some really unflattering ones, I'm afraid.



I'll bring my own. Looks like it's just you and me in the underclass party.

Fancy an export or a lambrusco?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 22, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'll bring my own. Looks like it's just you and me in the underclass party.
> 
> Fancy an export or a lambrusco?


Have you got anything at all of substance to bring to this thread, or are you simply going to continue behaving like a fucking 5 year old spoilt child?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> For many council tenants, given the level of discounts being offered, the opening up of credit and the ratcheting up of rents, it was a matter of necessity rather than greed or selfishness. The residualisation of council housing was not the fault of those who bought their flats and houses; the blame for it lies squarely at the door of those who encouraged renters to become debtors and who effectively outlawed reinvestment in council housing.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



They thought they were onto a good thing. Thats why they took RTB. I agree some worked out it could end up cheaper than renting. The other reason put to me was that they could leave something to there children. A chance they didnt have before.

The initial enthusiasm dampened down once they got billed for repairs.

Did I say i was blaming them for the residualisation of Council Housing? No I didnt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> it's true, our squatted red brick council flat on haggerston was far superior in build quality than our current HA "shared ownership" place.
> 
> why they stopped LA's reinvesting money from sold stock into more social housing is the curiousity to me.



Nothing to be curious about, mate. It goes like this:

Although the original RTB idea was Labour, it only originally encompassed uninhabited/uninhabitable council homes that tenants could buy at a discount and "homestead", i.e. you moved in there and did it up while occupying. It was a great idea that allowed the council to shed places it couldn't economically repair onto a market that was happy to do so, while also freeing up the council house the buyers had previously occupied.

When the Tories got in in '79, they'd already grasped the potential of the idea of RTB as a way of appealing to a variety of interests: To council tenants who wanted to "move up in the world"; to Tories through the idea of "shrinking the state"; to the City as a source of custom for financial services - specifically mortgages. What that poisonous cunt Ridley also grasped was that if you prevented local authorities from developing new-build, you not only made sure that any new housing _per se_, private or public, was built using private enterprise, you also deprived the working class in general of probably the most prevalent basis at that time for social solidarity - the fact that so many of us lived in council housing. An added bonus was that this caused a significant degree of under-development of housing from '86-onward, which has allowed high rent and high purchase prices in many areas because of the demand massively out-stripping supply.

True cuntitude.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 22, 2011)

One solution: When I was a young taffboy, listening to the radio under the bedsheets during some general election period, a bloke from the Communist Party was introduced. This was exotic enough in itself, but what he said was simple and even more attractive. "We in the communist party believe in a 4 day working week" he said. I have pretty much been some kind of communist ever since that moment.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 22, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Have you got anything at all of substance to bring to this thread, or are you simply going to continue behaving like a fucking 5 year old spoilt child?



I asked a straightforward question. Because I am interested in the answer. Did you answer it yet? Do you even understand why I asked it?

Or are you gonna carry on pretending that any of this is of substance and not just a catalogue of failures.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 22, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I qualify as underclass too. Yay me.
> 
> But I haven't been sent my complimentary hoodie yet. Perhaps there's a priority for the first 120,000 dysfunctional families?


You were meant to go and fetch it from the shops yourself the weekend before last...fancy not knowing that!


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 22, 2011)

I am rubbish underclass.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> you also deprived the working class in general of probably the most prevalent basis at that time for social solidarity - the fact that so many of us lived in council housing.



I agree.

Though ive meet more Council Tenants recently. The Council tenants and ex council tenants who hold leases work well together when dealing with the Council. I dont know whether its like this everywhere but RTB owners do not own freehold but are leaseholders. So a limited solidarity can be sustained . Especially when , as in Lambeth, leaseholders have been dealt with incompetently.

One person I talked to who exercised RTB said they did it partly because that would get rid of the council who were a pain to deal with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> I agree.
> 
> Though ive meet more Council Tenants recently. The Council tenants and ex council tenants who hold leases work well together when dealing with the Council. I dont know whether its like this everywhere but RTB owners do not own freehold but are leaseholders. So a limited solidarity can be sustained . Especially when , as in Lambeth, leaseholders have been dealt with incompetently.
> 
> One person I talked to who exercised RTB said they did it partly because that would get rid of the council who were a pain to deal with.



Freeholders on some properties (mainly houses) and leasholders for most flats, as I recall.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Aug 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Freeholders on some properties (mainly houses)  . . .



Not quite a freehold on houses, Southwark certianly imposes clauses to the effect that the council can refuse permission for the owner to sell to the buyer + heavy restrictions on knocking the place down and rebuilding on the land.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Freeholders on some properties (mainly houses) and leasholders for most flats, as I recall.


 
Yes , that's right.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 23, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> *They thought they were onto a good thing.* Thats why they took RTB. I agree some worked out it could end up cheaper than renting. The other reason put to me was that they could leave something to there children. A chance they didnt have before.
> 
> The initial enthusiasm dampened down once they got billed for repairs.
> 
> Did I say i was blaming them for the residualisation of Council Housing? No I didnt.



Some did; some knew they were avoiding a worse thing. I'm not sure why you seem to want to impose one explanation onto what was a protracted and complex set of processes?

As for you blaming those who exercised their 'right to buy', I suggest you have a look at the tone  of your original post (and the one quoted above), and consider if your characterisation of those people en mass doesn't point an accusing finger in their direction?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> OK Butchers. Let me put it this way: there is less overt political expression, more alienation from the political process. More chance of someone saying "I'm not interested in politics" - an essentially conservative position of course.


do you really mean "mainstream" politics here?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> why they stopped LA's reinvesting money from sold stock into more social housing is the curiousity to me.


actually, Thatcher did it deliberately, as part of the "rolling back the frontiers of the state"


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> actually, Thatcher did it deliberately, as part of the "rolling back the frontiers of the state"


yep, it's rather similar to what's going on now actually. Whilst ostensibly the Tories are acting against the deficit, the actual impact on public finance is going to be pretty limited, and they know it. What they're doing is taking various responsibilities away from the state, safe in the knowledge that no-one is going to restore them.

This, of course, is totally undemocratic, as the vast majority of people, cuts believers or not, don't actually want to permanently do away with these parts of the state.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 23, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> it's true, our squatted red brick council flat on haggerston was far superior in build quality than our current HA "shared ownership" place.
> 
> *why they stopped LA's reinvesting money from sold stock into more social housing is the curiousity to me.*


 
It was necessary in order to promote both home ownership/mortgage indebtedness and the private rented sector; both markets would have been rendered less attractive by a sustained substantial supply of council housing. It also secured the ratcheting up of council rents when placed alongside the ring fencing of housing budgets. All in all it was a political and ideological win/win situation for the Tories and increasingly a financial 'no-brainer' for those renters who could get access to sufficient credit (albeit that they suffered disproportionately in the subsequent house price crash).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> yep, it's rather similar to what's going on now actually. Whilst ostensibly the Tories are acting against the deficit, the actual impact on public finance is going to be pretty limited, and they know it. What they're doing is taking various responsibilities away from the state, safe in the knowledge that no-one is going to restore them.


Yep.  

It's telling how the chronic housing shortage in Britain wasn't even an issue in the last election. Thatcher was successful in removing housing from the list of things that a state should look after.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep.
> 
> It's telling how the chronic housing shortage in Britain wasn't even an issue in the last election. Thatcher was successful in removing housing from the list of things that a state should look after.



Quite. Elections.

It's never been anything but crystal clear that the shrinking of state responsibility and the reduction of taxes is part of the core motivation of the Tory party.

And they have won/ish 5 of the last 8 elections. Some might say all 8....

They count on individualism... and self interest. I don't really understand why some folk look so hard for excuses to shift the responsibility for selfish decisions away from those that made those decisions.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Quite. Elections.
> 
> It's never been anything but crystal clear that the shrinking of state responsibility and the reduction of taxes is part of the core motivation of the Tory party.
> 
> ...



The selfish decisions of the politicians' or the selfish decisions of the right to buyers'?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Both.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

And those that voted Tory because it directly benefited them.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 23, 2011)

Selfishness is a component of being human. So we all shoulder the burden of how and where we find ourselves.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Both.


 
All right to buyers?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Quite. Elections.
> 
> It's never been anything but crystal clear that the shrinking of state responsibility and the reduction of taxes is part of the core motivation of the Tory party.
> 
> ...



Well, firstly the Tory Party doesn't outright come and out and say these things. Secondly, 10.7m people in an electorate of 46m voted for them. The rest voted for someone they hoped wouldn't do these things or didn't think the contest worth participating in.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> All right to buyers?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



All right to buyers who voted Tory.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Well, firstly the Tory Party doesn't outright come and out and say these things. Secondly, 10.7m people in an electorate of 46m voted for them. The rest voted for someone they hoped wouldn't do these things or didn't think the contest worth participating in.



Firstly.. it very much does say exactly those things. And has for as long as I can remember.

Second.. the numbers are a bit of a distraction after the fact. Winning the cup final on penalties still gets you the trophy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> And they have won/ish 5 of the last 8 elections. Some might say all 8....


These things can change. In 1945, Labour won the argument for a whole raft of assumptions about what the state should be held responsible for, and the Tories agreed to this for the next 30-odd years. The argument against the Tories' 1979-onwards agenda can be won again.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nothing to be curious about, mate. It goes like this:
> 
> Although the original RTB idea was Labour, it only originally encompassed uninhabited/uninhabitable council homes that tenants could buy at a discount and "homestead", i.e. you moved in there and did it up while occupying. It was a great idea that allowed the council to shed places it couldn't economically repair onto a market that was happy to do so, while also freeing up the council house the buyers had previously occupied.
> 
> ...


all absolutely true, and I'd add that it provided a wonderful windfall for their mates in the property and construction sectors (both of which are noted for their financial generosity to the Tories, and their links with them eg macAlpines), in terms of the resulting, and inevitable, shortfall of housing in the south east both sent prices skyrocketing, and triggerd a construction boom.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Firstly.. it very much does say exactly those things. And has for as long as I can remember.
> 
> Second.. the numbers are a bit of a distraction after the fact. Winning the cup final on penalties still gets you the trophy.


the Tory Party went to great pains to tell people that they wouldn't cut back on elements of the state that are popular and used by almost everybody. As, in fact they have done at every election even when Thatcher was in charge. Like all political parties they spout stuff about reducing "waste" and who's in favour of waste? It is of course horseshit, but when you've got a political system as thoroughly entrenched as ours, the people that vote tend to be either the ones easily convinced by horseshit, the ones convinced by or getting advantage from official mainstream ideology or people choosing what they see as the least worst alternative.

I don't think we have a country full of selfish arseholes, voting each other out of entitlements and decent standards of living, I think we've got a political system that has permanently ground to a halt, and a public discourse that excludes substantive debate. So we trundle on with business as usual.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Or are you gonna carry on pretending that any of this is of substance and not just a catalogue of failures.


how can a debate on a major development/trend with UK society NOT be 'of substance'?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Selfishness is a component of being human. So we all shoulder the burden of how and where we find ourselves.



And therefore all have to do something about it.

When it's not your fault it's not your responsibility to fix it. And therefore you have an excuse if you can't or don't.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> And therefore all have to do something about it.
> 
> When it's not your fault it's not your responsibility to fix it. And therefore you have an excuse if you can't or don't.


How to get all on board, though?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> These things can change. In 1945, Labour won the argument for a whole raft of assumptions about what the state should be held responsible for, and the Tories agreed to this for the next 30-odd years. The argument against the Tories' 1979-onwards agenda can be won again.



They can change. But the battlegrounds change also.

Healthcare... social housing... welfare... care services. Battles won. They might now tinker with the details.. but the principles were won and installed.

What are the new battlegrounds? I know what I think they are.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> How to get all on board, though?



Drive the bus of self interest. Change the destination.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> how can a debate on a major development/trend with UK society NOT be 'of substance'?



When it gets nowhere.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Firstly.. it very much does say exactly those things. And has for as long as I can remember.
> 
> Second.. the numbers are a bit of a distraction after the fact. Winning the cup final on penalties still gets you the trophy.


 
The 1979 manifesto contained a commitment to the sale of council houses but was silent on the policy of rent increases and blocks on spending revenue raised; not exactly placing voters in the best position to make a genuinely informed decision.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> They can change. But the battlegrounds change also.
> 
> Healthcare... social housing... welfare... care services. Battles won. They might now tinker with the details.. but the principles were won and installed.
> 
> What are the new battlegrounds? I know what I think they are.


Well this is my point. wrt social housing, it is no longer held by any major political party that the state has a responsibility to provide housing for any of its citizens that wants housing. If you read, for instance, the Tory election manifesto from 1951 - Churchill's manifesto - one thing that jumps out is a complete acceptance that this is indeed part of the state's remit. Today, the Labour party no longer accepts this, let alone the tories.

But such changes, while they can endure for a long time, are not irreversible.


----------



## Edie (Aug 23, 2011)

What do you think Kizmet?

Got to say VPs posts on the history of council housing RTB, and the lack of building new homes as policy, have totally changed my pov on this over the years.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> the Tory Party went to great pains to tell people that they wouldn't cut back on elements of the state that are popular and used by almost everybody. As, in fact they have done at every election even when Thatcher was in charge. Like all political parties they spout stuff about reducing "waste" and who's in favour of waste? It is of course horseshit, but when you've got a political system as thoroughly entrenched as ours, the people that vote tend to be either the ones easily convinced by horseshit, the ones convinced by or getting advantage from official mainstream ideology or people choosing what they see as the least worst alternative.



That covers nearly everyone! 

I think you're wrong to suggest it was ignorance that led to Tory victories. It wasn't. It was self interest and shortsightedness.



> I don't think we have a country full of selfish arseholes, voting each other out of entitlements and decent standards of living, I think we've got a political system that has permanently ground to a halt, and a public discourse that excludes substantive debate. So we trundle on with business as usual.



That's not how it works. People aren't all selfish or all anything. Different circumstances bring out different characteristics. I don't in theory disagree that the political system encourages 'head-down' obedience. But, really, no-one is making you obey. You only obey if you choose to.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The 1979 manifesto contained a commitment to the sale of council houses but was silent on the policy of rent increases and blocks on spending revenue raised; not exactly placing voters in the best position to make a genuinely informed decision.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Fucking politicians, eh? If only they were all as straight talking and honest as all of us....

Come on.... it doesn't take much to read between the lines.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That covers nearly everyone!
> 
> *I think you're wrong to suggest it was ignorance that led to Tory victories. It wasn't. It was self interest and shortsightedness.*
> 
> That's not how it works. People aren't all selfish or all anything. Different circumstances bring out different characteristics. I don't in theory disagree that the political system encourages 'head-down' obedience. But, really, no-one is making you obey. *You only obey if you choose to.*



1. Of course ignorance had a role to play; see my previous post re. what was in the manifesto (it's even more telling if you look at the document's content re. privatisation);

2. That is not the experience of millions of people across thousands of years and miles; freedom of choice may or may not be a valuable desire but it is certainly not a lived reality.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Fucking politicians, eh? If only they were all as straight talking and honest as all of us....
> 
> Come on.... it doesn't take much to read between the lines.


Doesn't it? Given what I said above - that up to 1979, there had been cross-party agreement about the state's responsibility to provide housing - wouldn't you think it reasonable of people to think that the money raised from rtb would be reinvested in social housing?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That covers nearly everyone!
> 
> I think you're wrong to suggest it was ignorance that led to Tory victories. It wasn't. It was self interest and shortsightedness.
> 
> That's not how it works. People aren't all selfish or all anything. Different circumstances bring out different characteristics. I don't in theory disagree that the political system encourages 'head-down' obedience. But, really, no-one is making you obey. You only obey if you choose to.



I'm not suggesting it's ignorance either. I'm saying that if you have a political system like ours, it's inevitable that the party of the establishment will win a lot of elections (or most). After their 8m committed supporters, they only have to find another few million out of people disgusted by the corruption of their supposed opposition and out of the people who buy the propaganda.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well this is my point. wrt social housing, it is no longer held by any major political party that the state has a responsibility to provide housing for any of its citizens that wants housing. If you read, for instance, the Tory election manifesto from 1951 - Churchill's manifesto - one thing that jumps out is a complete acceptance that this is indeed part of the state's remit. Today, the Labour party no longer accepts this, let alone the tories.
> 
> But such changes, while they can endure for a long time, are not irreversible.



No. You can't ever go back. Society changes rapidly. You know that old saying about '3 square meals from barbarism'. The principle of provision for social housing is installed. Who owns the housing stock is the operational detail.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> The principle of provision for social housing is installed.


Sorry, but it isn't. You need special needs - some kind of 'sob story' - to get social housing now. That was not true before thatcher - social housing was for everyone.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Drive the bus of self interest. Change the destination.


Live life in the bus lane


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Edie said:


> What do you think Kizmet?



I think the new battleground are deeper and more fundamental than the details of how social housing should work or minor changes to policy on this or that.

I think they are about the difference between society and community.

A small, tightly knit, group of people who live, work and play with each other is very self sufficient. It's hard to control, hard to break and hard to sell to.

So influences that want to control and or sell have been for decades trying to fracture those communities. Split them down to the smallest number... the nuclear family. Move them around, put distance between them. Weaken the community structure. Introduce fear of strangers and mistrust. 

Some of the theorists on here will suggest that this was as a co-ordinated and concerted plan of this person or that person... but it's not. It's cause and effect. Circumstances.

We are encouraged to think about society now in a broad, general sense.. the country, Europe, the global economy. And it makes sense. But then we don't have a reason to think about our neighbours.

So I think if we are going to fight a war against this then we have to start by reconnecting with each other.

The new fight is really about getting people to see each other as people again.

And it's a fight we can win. Self interest comes in many forms.... for long time it's meant money and status and the perfect partner. They sold and packaged true love and made it a commodity.

But it can also be about the day to day self interest of making life more fun, interesting and fulfilling. Which isn't as easy as it sounds!



> Got to say VPs posts on the history of council housing RTB, and the lack of building new homes as policy, have totally changed my pov on this over the years.



I think VP provides a really good autopsy on the circumstances that have led to here. Cause and effect.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Live life in the bus lane





If we're all going the same place why do we need lanes?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, but it isn't. You need special needs - some kind of 'sob story' - to get social housing now. That was not true before thatcher - social housing was for everyone.



You don't consider housing benefit as provision of social housing?


----------



## weepiper (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You don't consider housing benefit as provision of social housing?



of course it's not social housing  housing benefit paid to private landlords is just that - paying the private sector. It doesn't have any of the security of tenure that council housing does.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Doesn't it? Given what I said above - that up to 1979, there had been cross-party agreement about the state's responsibility to provide housing - wouldn't you think it reasonable of people to think that the money raised from rtb would be reinvested in social housing?



It would say it was more reasonable to think that most people never gave it a second thought.

Clear and present danger. The tendency is to vote on personal and current concerns.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

weepiper said:


> of course it's not social housing  housing benefit paid to private landlords is just that - paying the private sector. It doesn't have any of the security of tenure that council housing does.



I don't disagree. But I asked whether it counts as 'provision of'. Which... personal security aside... it does.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You don't consider housing benefit as provision of social housing?


No. I most emphatically do not.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I don't disagree. But I asked whether it counts as 'provision of'. Which... personal security aside... it does.



Security of tenure is the whole point of social housing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2011)

hb is a means-tested benefit. Nothing to do with social housing.

And what weepiper says. Social housing is the provision of affordable, secure _homes_.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

How so?


----------



## weepiper (Aug 23, 2011)

dp


----------



## weepiper (Aug 23, 2011)

are you serious? Because it can't be taken away from you on a whim, like a private let can. My rent is (mostly) paid by housing benefit, yet my landlord could theoretically evict me with two months' notice for whatever reason he likes. And I could have paid the rent on time every month for years, and he could still do it. Can you not see the attraction in a council house?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. I most emphatically do not.



It fulfills the actual terms of social housing. I agree it's a shit way to do it. But the point is that it's an operational detail.

The principle has shifted to housing for all who 'need' it.... not all who 'want' it.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 23, 2011)

dp


----------



## Edie (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I think the new battleground are deeper and more fundamental than the details of how social housing should work or minor changes to policy on this or that.
> 
> I think they are about the difference between society and community.
> 
> ...


That's really interesting. What causes and effects? Or is that just too big or stupid a question for right now?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

weepiper said:


> are you serious? Because it can't be taken away from you on a whim, like a private let can. My rent is (mostly) paid by housing benefit, yet my landlord could theoretically evict me with two months' notice for whatever reason he likes. And I
> could have paid the rent on time every month for years, and
> he could still do it. Can you not see the attraction in a
> council house?



I do. Personal security is very important to that person.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You don't consider housing benefit as provision of social housing?



It by definition cannot be the provision of social housing. ocial housing is just that, a house, a home. Housing benefit is not a home or a house it is a method of ensuring/helping people on 'no'/low income pay/afford to pay for rented accomadation. It does not have to be paid into the social rented sector, as such given it's neither a house nor restricted to the social rented sector it cannot be as you describe.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 23, 2011)

weepiper said:


> Security of tenure is the whole point of social housing.


TBF most HAs don't give any more security of tenancy than a private landlord.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> It by definition cannot be the provision of social housing. ocial housing is just that, a house, a home. Housing benefit is not a home or a house it is a method of ensuring/helping people on 'no'/low income pay/afford to pay for rented accomadation. It does not have to be paid into the social rented sector, as such given it's neither a house nor restricted to the social rented sector it cannot be as you describe.



I agree that it's bending the definition of provision of social housing. But it fulfills the obligation of society to provide according to need. Only just. But clearly enough to be popular.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> When it gets nowhere.


well by the same token, EVERY debate on EVERY online forum 'goes nowhere'.
Except how do you know they do? I've lost count of the times I've found U75 threads in P&P
to be very useful, to me and others, in RL community organising and activism, and I'm sure the same goes for others too. That makes them of practical use.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Edie said:


> That's really interesting. What causes and effects? Or is that just too big or stupid a question for right now?



Depends on what bit you mean? Everything is cause and effect.

At a basic level the whole principle of democracy encourages self interest. And the power of majority. But it works... sort of.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> hb is a means-tested benefit. Nothing to do with social housing.
> 
> And what weepiper says. Social housing is the provision of affordable, secure _homes_.


Social housing as "affordable" very soon won't be the case, as the Tories want to allow RSL's to set rent levels at up to 80% of the local private rental levels. They really don't like social housing, presumably because of many of the same basic principles that VP put so well earlier on.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> well by the same token, EVERY debate on EVERY online forum 'goes nowhere'.
> Except how do you know they do? I've lost count of the times I've found U75 threads in P&P
> to be veryn useful, to me and others, in RL community organising and activism, and I'm sure the same goes for others too. That makes them of practical use.



No, not every debate goes nowhere. If that was the case I wouldn't still be here after 10 years.

Bit a bit less antagonism, a bit more acceptance of different ideas and you never know.. it might be a bit more useful.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Social housing as "affordable" very soon won't be the case, as the Tories want to allow RSL's to set rent levels at up to 80% of the local private rental levels. They really don't like social housing, presumably because of many of the same basic principles that VP put so well earlier on.



They just changed the definition of what social housing actually means.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> No, not every debate goes nowhere. If that was the case I wouldn't still be here after 10 years.
> 
> Bit a bit less antagonism, a bit more acceptance of different ideas and you never know.. it might be a bit more useful.


If ideas are good - yours, mine or anone's - they stand up under sustained scrutiny. If they're not, they'll get pulled apart. That's how it rolls - that's 'debate'.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

If it worked so well how have we ended up here?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> If it worked so well how have we ended up here?


that makes absolutely no sense, in the context of what I was saying.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Widen your context, then. Because it makes perfect sense in the context of this discussion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> yep, it's rather similar to what's going on now actually. Whilst ostensibly the Tories are acting against the deficit, the actual impact on public finance is going to be pretty limited, and they know it. What they're doing is taking various responsibilities away from the state, safe in the knowledge that no-one is going to restore them.
> 
> This, of course, is totally undemocratic, as the vast majority of people, cuts believers or not, don't actually want to permanently do away with these parts of the state.



Unfortunately for us, and fortunately for the scum who rule over us, we no longer have a coherent set of political weapons to turn on the state in order to "incentivise" them to return those parts of the state that *we* want, and it may take too long for the disparate affected parties to actually realise common cause, especially given how wary any type of "leftie" protester is of their cause being appropriated by undesirable elements who'll use it for their own ends.

Even the unions are often too busy fighting internally and addressing their own issues with the state to be able to give as much time as is necessary to the broader issues.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep.
> 
> It's telling how the chronic housing shortage in Britain wasn't even an issue in the last election. Thatcher was successful in removing housing from the list of things that a state should look after.



The problem with the chronic housing shortage not being an issue is that it is regional rather than national, and has successfully been shrugged off as a "London problem" for years, even though it affects vast swathes of the south-east of England, increasingly large parts of the south-west, and parts of Wales and Scotland too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> the Tory Party went to great pains to tell people that they wouldn't cut back on elements of the state that are popular and used by almost everybody. As, in fact they have done at every election even when Thatcher was in charge. Like all political parties they spout stuff about reducing "waste" and who's in favour of waste? It is of course horseshit, but when you've got a political system as thoroughly entrenched as ours, the people that vote tend to be either the ones easily convinced by horseshit, the ones convinced by or getting advantage from official mainstream ideology or people choosing what they see as the least worst alternative.
> 
> I don't think we have a country full of selfish arseholes, voting each other out of entitlements and decent standards of living, I think we've got a political system that has permanently ground to a halt, and a public discourse that excludes substantive debate. So we trundle on with business as usual.



Yep. The political system has always been skewed, and has moved at the pace of an atherosclerotic snail, but it's nigh on moribund now, so tied up in facilitating neo-liberalism that it's usefulness as a mechanism for actually governing in the interests of the electorate is zero.

If you take a look at the volume of legislation post-'79, you'll notice a year-on-year increase, and at first you'll think "well, that's governments for you, wanting to sweep away the fusty old legislation and replace it with something dynamic!", only that wasn't what Thatcher, Major, Blair or Brown's governments did. What they did was legislate to facilitate the incursion of neo-liberalism and its predicates into our legislature, our economy and into our everyday lives. The Tories made a big play from about 2005 onward about how Blair's parliaments were passing unheard-of volumes of legislation - Interestingly, Disco Dave's government, so critical before the GE, have taken the same route, decreasing the volume scarcely at all, despites intimations *and* promises otherwise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> They just changed the definition of what social housing actually means.


they being who and post a link to this change or shut the fuck up.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> they being who and post a link to this change or shut the fuck up.


So you would count housing association (with it's less secure than a council house tenancies and 'not-for-profit' managers on massive wages) as being the same as council housing?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> So you would count housing association (with it's less secure than a council house tenancies and 'not-for-profit' managers on massive wages) as being the same as council housing?



I know you weren't asking me BUT, as someone who's council tenancy was recently sold to a housing association I would say NO, NO, NO!!! Absolutely not!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

For those among us who are not _getting it_, I suggest reading Hansard, Thursday 5th of May 2011. Debate on Social Housing in London.
Starts close to the bottom of this page:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110505/debtext/110505-0001.htm


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Widen your context, then. Because it makes perfect sense in the context of this discussion.


no it doesn't, because the reasons how 'it' ( I presume you mean our society, economy and polity) ended up here is basically down to far, far, greater social and economic factors than is encapsulated by postings on a BB: in essence, the 30-year neoliberal escapade which has trashed society, the welfare state, working class communities, and seen the rich and Big Business get away with blue murder


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

would have been a good idea to stop it then... wonder how come that idea didn't survive the 'debate'?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I know you weren't asking me BUT, as someone who's council tenancy was recently sold to a housing association I would say NO, NO, NO!!! Absolutely not!



That's the point.. it's not the same. The definition has changed.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> would have been a good idea to stop it then... wonder how come that idea didn't survive the 'debate'?


well, obviously, because of the vast disparity in wealth and political power between all those pushing the neolib agenda and their supporters, and the handful of people fighting it.
What other possible explanation could there be?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Social housing as "affordable" very soon won't be the case, as the Tories want to allow RSL's to set rent levels at up to 80% of the local private rental levels. They really don't like social housing, presumably because of many of the same basic principles that VP put so well earlier on.


It's really quite simple why the tories hate social housing. The people in social housing aren't being exploited. That's no good when you own land and want to charge for its use. How dare people live somewhere and only pay what it costs to live there! How can anyone get rich on that?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> well, obviously, because of the vast disparity in wealth and political power between all those pushing the neolib agenda and their supporters, and the handful of people fighting it.
> What other possible explanation could there be?



That your idea of debate doesn't work and good ideas are often pushed out by personal agendas.

That's really how debates 'roll'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That's the point.. it's not the same. The definition has changed.



No, it is still in the process of changing.  It's the _how_ it is changing which is the problem and what those changes will mean. I posted a link on the previous page to a parlimentary debate, I think you should take a look at it as I don't think you fully understand that the implications of these changes, and that they have not all been made _law_ etc yet


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> No, it is still in the process of changing.  It's the _how_ it is changing which is the problem and what those changes will mean. I posted a link on the previous page to a parlimentary debate, I think you should take a look at it as I don't think you fully understand that the implications of these changes, and that they have not all been made _law_ etc yet



Videos and external links don't always work on smart phones... not that smart yet!

Don't get me wrong... I don't think this government could run a bath. But my point Is not about changes that affect some people negatively and some positively. It was that provision is established. Tories will try and cut it... labour should reinvest... swings and roundabouts.

And beyond that it was about trying to look for areas where one person can make an impact. Where every person can make an impact. Looking for issues that affect everyone... not just those affected by social housing concerns.

That's why I think the new battleground is in the community. Regardless of class. All classes. All people. Together.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That your idea of debate doesn't work and good ideas are often pushed out by personal agendas.
> 
> That's really how debates 'roll'.


you really are talking utter crap here. OF COURSE 'debate' can't stop this all-out neolib  onslaught all by itself - NO-ONE is suggesting it could (please find me ONE poster who said it could). you need a far wider, greater process of propagandisation, community and w/c action and co-ordinated w/c resistance. However, debates such as this are an essential informational part of the mix, becase they help thrash out the issues, and throw up useful ideas and info. To suggest an online debate is there for anything more than that is like blaming the archbishop of Canterbury for not making a go of being centre-forward for Man Utd - it's simply not its' purpose


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Videos and external links don't always work on smart phones... not that smart yet!
> 
> Don't get me wrong... I don't think this government could run a bath. But my point Is not about changes that affect some people negatively and some positively. It was that provision is established. Tories will try and cut it... labour should reinvest... swings and roundabouts.
> 
> ...


NOTHING is 'regardless of class', and nor can it be.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

I didn't say all online debate. You did. I said your idea of debate. Plus... unless I am mistaken I was talking to you... the archbishop of canterbury does not post here.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

It's time to change, streathamite. What you think is important is not and how you want to fight will fail.

Get some new ideas. If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you always got.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> NOTHING is 'regardless of class', and nor can it be.



And this is why you fail to connect. in that whole post about community all you could come up with was some bollocks about class.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

Will the right honorable posters give way?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That's why I think the new battleground is in the community. Regardless of class. All classes. All people. Together.



I agree. I agree with this more each day. It confirms something I feel like I have always known, just not been that focused on in this way! I have been organising small budget projects in my own immediate community for 3 years now and have learnt loads about how 'politics' play out in the lives and opinions of those around me.

I am working on something a bit more challenging now...ambitious, might not work, but is worth a try.

Streathamite; Just to point out that when Kizmet posted 'all classes' above it reads to me he was acknowledging the significance of class in these matters, even if he didn't realise it!


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

I did realise it... cheeky mare!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

Heh! 

I was being _cheeky_, of course. MOre to show how weird you two have gotten of late...it's like a misty duel at dawn, I say that because it seems like the 'mist' is stopping you two actually reading what each other are posting!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Videos and external links don't always work on smart phones... not that smart yet!
> 
> Don't get me wrong... I don't think this government could run a bath. But my point Is not about changes that affect some people negatively and some positively. It was that provision is established. Tories will try and cut it... labour should reinvest... swings and roundabouts.
> 
> And beyond that it was about trying to look for areas where one person can make an impact. Where every person can make an impact. Looking for issues that affect everyone... not just those affected by social housing concerns.



Except that there are no such "universal" concerns, however hard you look for them, at least not ones that mean anything to people yet. Sure, we'll probably all unite around scarcity issues when they're right there in our faces, but now, or imminently? You're dreaming!



> That's why I think the new battleground is in the community. Regardless of class. All classes. All people. Together.



Except that we have absolutely no examples of any sort of cross-class, cross-cultural unity that could utilise this new battleground, make it an effective venue for combating the state.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It's time to change, streathamite. What you think is important is not and how you want to fight will fail.
> 
> Get some new ideas. If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you always got.


Please, Oh Lord, save me from EVER adopting the total vacuum of social, economic and political analysis - the total lack of ANY useful ideas - that your postings represent.
change to what? You don't have any real answers.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except that we have absolutely no examples of any sort of cross-class, cross-cultural unity that could utilise this new battleground, make it an effective venue for combating the state.



Well, why not make this the battleground now then VP? ...the new 'ambitious' project I was referring to above is about addressessing this 'lack' in 'some' way. Now, seeing as though I am not the only one who can see/identify the 'lack'....W' gwan?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> And this is why you fail to connect. in that whole post about community all you could come up with was some bollocks about class.


As any 1st year politics student will tell you, NOTHING about class is 'bollocks', simply because class, and inequality, and the distribution of wealth, are the single biggest driving factors in how we got to where we are today.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

How about some _solutions_ as opposed to _rhetoric_ folks?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I didn't say all online debate. You did. I said your idea of debate..


That's quibbling - I was simply pointing out how debates like this ARE useful, in practical terms, as part of a much wider mix of ideas, discourse and action.



> Plus... unless I am mistaken I was talking to you... the archbishop of canterbury does not post here


no ffs! it's what we call an 'analogy'. Thought your oh-so-superior intellect and education puts you above us all?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> How about some _solutions_ as opposed to _rhetoric_ folks?


I strongly believe we need a mix of solutions, but ALL of them must be based around getting widespread popular realisation that the rich and wealthy have taken us for an almighty sodding great ride, and then building mass unity to fight back against that, and giving ourselves and others the confidence to believe that we can.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Well, why not make this the battleground now then VP? ...the new 'ambitious' project I was referring to above is about addressessing this 'lack' in 'some' way. Now, seeing as though I am not the only one who can see/identify the 'lack'....W' gwan?



On what issue(s), though? I'm wracking my brain here trying to think of extant issues around which people could unite and engage on a cross-class and cross-cultural basis, and I can't think of anything that remotely resembles an effective basis.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> On what issue(s), though? I'm wracking my brain here trying to think of extant issues around which people could unite and engage on a cross-class and cross-cultural basis, and I can't think of anything that remotely resembles an effective basis.



For me it starts with information/skill sharing. Networking, building links and shared experiences. One particular issue isn't going to feel like 'everybody's'. The cuts though are a good place to start because of how widely they are being felt. There is a lack or resources and access to funds...info/skill sharing can go someway to filling that gap, diverting 'dependency'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I strongly believe we need a mix of solutions, but ALL of them must be based around getting widespread popular realisation that the rich and wealthy have taken us for an almighty sodding great ride, and then building mass unity to fight back against that, and giving ourselves and others the confidence to believe that we can.



Yes. This will be made easier once people have a sense of being valued by _eachother_. Especially at a time when they are being pitched against each other. That will not happen without the leg work of bringing people together, age old empathy and experience is priceless.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> For me it starts with information/skill sharing. Networking, building links and shared experiences. One particular issue isn't going to feel like 'everybody's'.



So, effectively, not around issues, but around a particular concept of integration of community.

The problem there, as has been noted before (by Kevin Hetherington among others) is that it doesn't always provide a very solid basis from which to attempt to apply leverage over issues. It tends to be just as dependent on the "activism-mindedness" of small groups of individuals as any more overtly political project.

Worth doing in and of itself, but not necessarily a route to wider "people power".


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

See edit/addition to my post VP please. Probably added at the same time you were responding.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except that there are no such "universal" concerns, however hard you look for them, at least not ones that mean anything to people yet. Sure, we'll probably all unite around scarcity issues when they're right there in our faces, but now, or imminently? You're dreaming!
> 
> 
> 
> Except that we have absolutely no examples of any sort of cross-class, cross-cultural unity that could utilise this new battleground, make it an effective venue for combating the state.



By your own post-mortem of cause and effect you would see that there has never been a need for such action. There's never been 30 years plus of this 'neo-liberal' agenda.

So there are no examples. We are in new territory and need to have a different plan of action.

The mistake is to think of it in terms of 'issues' and not motives.

No two people have the same issues... but many share the same motivations.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I agree. I agree with this more each day. It confirms something I feel like I have always known, just not been that focused on in this way! I have been organising small budget projects in my own immediate community for 3 years now and have learnt loads about how 'politics' play out in the lives and opinions of those around me.
> 
> I am working on something a bit more challenging now...ambitious, might not work, but is worth a try.



It'll stand more chance if you have help. And that's the point... encouraging people to help in their local community. Devote time.

And the pay off? Help in return.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> No two people have the same issues... but many share the same motivations.



I agree with this...and it needs to be exploited to it's full potential. I personally think the idea of 'integration' creates greater battlegrounds...people don't need to fully integrate to recognise a 'common' cause and how they are valuable/valued by each other.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It'll stand more chance if you have help. And that's the point... encouraging people to help in their local community. Devote time.
> 
> And the pay off? Help in return.



I am trying and I am receiving help...worth getting out of bed for, amongst other things!


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, effectively, not around issues, but around a particular concept of integration of community.
> 
> The problem there, as has been noted before (by Kevin Hetherington among others) is that it doesn't always provide a very solid basis from which to attempt to apply leverage over issues. It tends to be just as dependent on the "activism-mindedness" of small groups of individuals as any more overtly political project.
> 
> Worth doing in and of itself, but not necessarily a route to wider "people power".



It IS people power.

I'm not limiting it to political expression or machinations. It's not about activism.

It's about having things happening in your local community that brings it together. Whatever great idea that may be.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I am trying and I am receiving help...worth getting out of bed for, amongst other things!



Me too. And I have never found a thing more worth getting out of bed for!


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I agree with this...and it needs to be exploited to it's full potential. I personally think the idea of 'integration' creates greater battlegrounds...people don't need to fully integrate to recognise a 'common' cause and how they are valuable/valued by each other.



Worth more than just my second like.

This is bang on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> See edit/addition to my post VP please. Probably added at the same time you were responding.



Well, "the cuts" are *a* basis, but they affect unevenly.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 23, 2011)

You're describing cooperative living, rather than capitalist essentially imo.

And its extremely difficult to maintain the former in the latter ime.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes. This will be made easier once people have a sense of being valued by _eachother_. Especially at a time when they are being pitched against each other. That will not happen without the leg work of bringing people together, age old empathy and experience is priceless.



Absolutely. And then there's nothing to fight back. The battle will be won. Then it's just back to the day to day struggles of living. Which is battle enough.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> You're describing cooperative living, rather than capitalist essentially imo.
> 
> And its extremely difficult to maintain the former in the latter ime.



Has been. But there's never been a better time than right now...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, "the cuts" are *a* basis, *but they affect unevenly.*



You are right, they do, however they are affecting widely and I don't think this is gonna get better anytime soon. That in itself creates potential. Which sounds like a god awful thing to say given the situation and the reality of what these cuts mean to people, however there is potential there.

These cuts are not new either there a fuckload of people who have already crumbled because of them, the reaching out to those with experience is key...I feel we all need to remember that 'class' has become a much more fluid thing especially amongst those at the 'lower' end of the poxy scale, I also think that most people know this and that with the stress/pressure imposed by the current gov march towards an even bigger squeeze, the capacity for _aires and graces_ are reduced.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> That's quibbling - I was simply pointing out how debates are useful....
> 
> snip
> 
> ... no ffs! it's what we call an 'analogy'. Thought your oh-so-superior intellect and education puts you above us all?



Very useful debating, there.

And have you forgotten that me and veeps are the only two openly underclass on here, innit? No superior intellect or education.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Has been. But there's never been a better time than right now...


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

I remember that glory night. I got there a week late. Watched it on telly in Copenhagen.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> You are right, they do, however they are affecting widely and I don't think this is gonna get better anytime soon. That in itself creates potential. Which sounds like a god awful thing to say given the situation and the reality of what these cuts mean to people, however there is potential there. These cuts are not new either there a fuckload of people who have already crumbled because of them, the reaching out to those with experience is key...I feel we all need to remember that 'class' has become a much more fluid thing especially amongst those at the 'lower' end of the poxy scale, I also think that most people know those and that the stress/pressure imposed by the current gov march towards an even bigger squeeze, the capacity for _aires and graces_ are reduced.



This post keeps growing everytime I look at it!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> This post keeps growing everytime I look at it!



So what?...am doing other stuff and adding to it as things occur to me. 

I have recently added a paragraph break and corrected a few typos too, just so you know!


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

This is beyond government. It's about returning to a kind of community strength that means government will have to once again represent us.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 24, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It IS people power.
> 
> I'm not limiting it to political expression or machinations. It's not about activism.
> 
> It's about having things happening in your local community that brings it together. Whatever great idea that may be.


ermm...I dunno if English is your first language, but;


> having things happening in your local community that brings it together. Whatever great idea that may be


is a pretty accurate definition of 'activism' itself!
It may not be Party-based activism, but community action is still 'activism', full stop.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 24, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> This is beyond government. It's about returning to a kind of community strength that means government will have to once again represent us.


sorry, but without an analysis of the disparity of the various forces involved, and the wider social/economic context, this really is meaningless, pie-in-the-sky dribblings.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 24, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Very useful debating, there.
> 
> And have you forgotten that me and veeps are the only two openly underclass on here, innit? No superior intellect or education.


except you're not; you have repeatedly belittled me and othders, as incapable of understanding what you're saying, not having the intellect or the understanding


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 24, 2011)

I said unwilling. Not incapable.

Unwilling is much worse.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 24, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> sorry, but without an analysis of the disparity of the various forces involved, and the wider social/economic context, this really is meaningless, pie-in-the-sky dribblings.



Unwilling is worse because... instead of just asking me for an analysis of the social context.. you had to post this pointless shit.

What I posted was meant to be the start of a conversation.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 25, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Unwilling is worse because... instead of just asking me for an analysis of the social context.. you had to post this pointless shit.
> 
> What I posted was meant to be the start of a conversation.


YOU are accusing anyone of posting "pointless shit"?
*all* of your posts are precisely that. fuck me, that's rich!
and I've pointed out the need for that wider contextual analysis countless times, and got ignored, precisely because your vague, incoherent waffle is antithetical to such analysis


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 25, 2011)

Still unwilling to hold a conversation, eh?

Or have you now become unable?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 25, 2011)

Ever considered 'asking' instead of 'pointing out the need'?

Don't answer.... it wasn't really a question. More an observation.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 25, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Still unwilling to hold a conversation, eh?
> 
> Or have you now become unable?


going by tyour inane postings - a conversation with you is a waste of energy, mental horsepower, and above all precious time. Sorry, but you are simply not worth wasting time on - you have nothing to say that any sane person should take seriously


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 25, 2011)

You're clearly not very sane.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 25, 2011)

Oh for fuck's sake!!! The joke is you two probably have a lot in common...get a grip!


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 25, 2011)

Eventually he's going to run out of insults and say something worthwhile to me.... he has stamina.. that's for sure!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 25, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Eventually he's going to run out of insults and say something worthwhile to me.... he has stamina.. that's for sure!



Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 25, 2011)

I'm sorry, I don't see it like that.

I'm strictly a 'treat others as they have treated you' person.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 25, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm sorry, I don't see it like that.
> 
> I'm strictly a 'treat others as they have treated you' person.



I hear ya, it can however become a cycle of waiting for the other person to back down or apologise (show you some positive regard), I would hazard a guess that Strethamite feels much the same way you do now too. Just saying!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm sorry, I don't see it like that.
> 
> I'm strictly a 'treat others as they have treated you' person.


right. so you never open a conversation or take the initiative because you want to find out how people will treat you first.

perhaps a better motto, if you're that way inclined, would be 'treat others as you'd be treated yourself'.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> right. so you never open a conversation or take the initiative because you want to find out how people will treat you first.



Like I said on a different thread you are also on... my posting style quickly sorts out the ones who are intent on telling and those interested in talking.

I don't waste time with those who only want to tell me things.



> perhaps a better motto, if you're that way inclined, would be 'treat others as you'd be treated yourself'.



In life I am proactive... on the net - reactive.

It's better that way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I don't waste time with those who only want to tell me things.


why the bloody fuck are you here then?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I hear ya, it can however become a cycle of waiting for the other person to back down or apologise (show you some positive regard),



Of course you are right... but like I said... some folk will never want to listen to some other folk. It's just the way.

In the end you have no choice but to try and use their prejudices to illustrate your point.



> I would hazard a guess that Strethamite feels much the same way you do now too. Just saying!



Maybe. But I doubt it. I get your point, though.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> why the bloody fuck are you here then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2011)

just fucking lurk then and don't inflict yourself on everyone else.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

Treat others as they treat you, eh?

You fucking sad, pathetic hypocrite.

Is that what you meant?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Treat others as they treat you, eh?
> 
> You fucking sad, pathetic hypocrite.
> 
> Is that what you meant?


i never said that was my philosophy


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

No. You perfectly illustrated why it doesn't work.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> No. You perfectly illustrated why it doesn't work.


you're caught out talking shit and your first thought is to, er, talk shit. no change there then.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

I was perfectly polite to you in my answer... you were an arse in return.

And still are. Always are. So what's the point in treating you politely?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

And yet still, I probably will.

And anyway... treat others as you'd be treated doesn't work... especially if you're a masochist or a hospital patient.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I remember that glory night. I got there a week late. Watched it on telly in Copenhagen.



it was the worst day of my whole life


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

I didn't realise you were even born then!


----------



## sybil (Aug 26, 2011)

Yes there is and has been for 30 years ime 
Never underestimate the children of this class but try and accomadate them into our so amazingly open society where anyone can achieve anything they desire ?
Yes let's not laugh !


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2011)

I jest, I was 7 when it fell.


----------



## sybil (Aug 26, 2011)

The beauty is out there in people and in places and not amongst strangleholds that chain you to a set of rules .. we only have to look for them and set ourselves free DotCommunist


----------



## sybil (Aug 26, 2011)

You know it's true son .. get to work ;0 ]


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2011)

rory mate- change up your style else you'll be rumbled


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 26, 2011)

If I just close my eyes and wish hard enough a unicorn will appear, farting rainbows.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2011)

In your case the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow had best be a pot of indo chinese communist history books or else it can fuck off ennit


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I jest, I was 7 when it fell.



I had some pieces that I chipped off it with a bit of car axle I found... told everyone that I'd get them some... then lost most of them hitching back across the channel.

Good old Dover paving stones and I didn't have the heart to disappoint.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2011)

pieces of the true cross


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 26, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> In your case the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow had best be a pot of indo chinese communist history books or else it can fuck off ennit



I've already got most of them.


----------

