Grendel
Well-Known Member
Bragg is a wealthy man and a bore who is like Wolfie Smith driving a Rolls Royce
Bragg is a wealthy man and a bore who is like Wolfie Smith driving a Rolls Royce
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
I really must read more Marx, because I feel like a bluffer having read little more than books about his beliefs. However, having said that, it's my understanding that he believed that Socialism would come naturally, without revolution.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I know very little but to suggest he supports the capitalist model is clearly misleading and his philosophy of it failing the population is incorrect
16.1C: The Marxist Critique of Capitalism
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Unlike Eagleton, you resort to playing the man and not the ball. Ideas don't become more or less relevant depending on what car you're driving.
Well, unless you're Baudrillard maybe.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Capitalism is society progressing from feudalism. He'd argue that until the conditions are b right, we don't move to his idea of socialism and it would happen organically, although with the workers rising up.
It's where to conflate certain ideas as Marxist is dangerous, as they tried to skip a stage or two, and artificially moved along the revolution stage.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
New Zealand, Labour government
Denmark, Social Democrats government supported by a confidence and supply arrangement with the Socialist Peoples Party
Sweden, Coalition Government of Social Democrats, Greens and the Left Party.
Finland, Social Democrat Party of Finland in government.
Iceland, Left Green Movement government.
All socialist parties, just because it doesn’t fit the rights lazy trope doctrine that socialism means communism, Marxism etc doesn’t mean they’re not Socialist, it just means that you’re uneducated in the broadness of socialism and choose to follow a trope that’s as moronic as me lumping BNP, NF etc in with the Tories simply because they’re all on the right of politics. The left just like the right is broad.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Note to people whinging about "cancel culture" if I can hear you whinging about it then your clearly haven't been "cancelled".
It's also grifters like failed actors Laurence Fox who whinge about "cancel culture" so they can cash in on the thick c**t pound.
It's also grifters like failed actors Laurence Fox who whinge about "cancel culture" so they can cash in on the thick c**t pound.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
He also makes plenty of antisemitic comments in the books that I've read. Maybe that's why ppl think he's a socialist? But it's important to note that not all antisemites are left wing.
Don't dis the Tonester. In my opinion the very greatest insight and understanding of every nuance can be obtained by googling links rather than actually reading the books.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
It's a very dangerous criticism to go down that line. There's always somebody who's read more...
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty confident that someone who thinks that adverbs go with nouns isn't one of them.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
no shit!
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
People think he's a socialist because he is...
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The national socialists were about as socialist as the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a democracy
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Stalin is about as Marxist as Trump too.
Appropriation is something else entirely.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Time for some pickled pigeon to get my head around it.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
But even today antisemitism is rife on the right. Jews have always been the biggest bogeyman for the higher echelons of the far right even though the knuckle draggers on the ground are spouting off about Muslims, blacks and Asians.
I remember a quote in one of the books I've read about them from a senior member of one of the far right groups, "blacks and Asians are the scab, Jews are the sore". Charming.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
In its own way, and as far as I understand it, certain acts are along the lines of cancel culture, yet insidious and slipped under the radar. Grendel has tried just such a thing with Orwell; forget the ideas and instead point towards his lifestyle. trench has tried the same, throw in the idea of antisemitism to diminish a particular argument and silence it. That is no different then silencing JK Rowling's ideas on feminism, because of her attitude to transgender, Starkey's historical impact removed because of his racism.
It expands, elsewhere, as well - the use of certain figures to demonise an idea, rather than engage with the idea itself, it's an attempt to marginalise, to put back in its place, to allow the dominant ideology free reign over ideas as they used to have, to remove the challenge and silence it, de-platform it by association or otherwise.
That is as much the ethos of cancel culture as anything else and the irony is, its practiced by those who claim to want free speach, liberalism, and the ability of all people to speak their views. That's just lip service to the actuality, as much as Stalin was lip service to Marxism.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Large portions of this thread need to take a politics class. Lazy forum and YouTube right wing “political education” in abundance in here. Just waiting for “national socialists”, “cultural Marxism” and “socialism has failed everywhere” to complete my nut job bingo card.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Look no further than the ongoing conspiracy theories about George Soros
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Indeed. I've always thought that antisemitism on the left and right was different in that the left was mainly driven by the Israeli/Palestinian situation and the right was more the global conspiracy stuff, (though not exclusive to right).
However, it seems both ends of the spectrum are buying into the current conspiracy theories going around regarding 5G, Covid, masks, vaccines etc and all of them are laced with an unhealthy does of antisemitism and the usual tropes.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I've always considered Orwell as someone who fundamentally agrees with socialism but is angered by those who use it as an excuse to remove the elite to become the elite.
It's not the more even society he rails against in his work, it's the individuals who manipulate it for their own purposes and his attempts to then work out how to prevent it happening, or if it's even possible.
It's not the more even society he rails against in his work, it's the individuals who manipulate it for their own purposes and his attempts to then work out how to prevent it happening, or if it's even possible.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It’s your view because you like a lazy trope.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Reading books is one thing understanding them is something else. You’ve just spent the best part of two days telling us how you’ve read many George Orwell books and yet somehow come to the conclusion that he’s anti-socialism. Your mate Grendull is another. He’s so entrenched in a lazy right wing tropes he lacks the ability to identify socialism, dismisses socialist countries as socialists based on that trope and declares that you can’t be a socialist and pro monarchy which is really odd as every committed Tory voter I know also wants the monarchy abolished, unless it can be used as a stick to bash Corbyn with.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
That’s a pretty balanced response and probably about right. As the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s as true of the left as it is the right.
Personally I wouldn’t abolish the monarchy, I think it has a massive amount of modernisation to do still including defining its roll and a massive cull of the coat hangers, I’m also pro House of Lords, even more so in the last year as it was the only mechanism attempting to keep Boris and co in check when they started abusing the sovereignty of government, the very thing they’d campaigned to “save”, even the queen wasn’t safe from Boris’ lies.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I'd favour getting rid of the monarchy and maintaining the Lords but with complete elimination of hereditary titles. A matter for another debate though!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Even Billy Bragg has argued for a reformed House of Lords. Like you say though, a matter for another debate.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
The antisemitism quip was a joke. Do you honestly believe that I habitually try to slip silencing slurs into conversations rather than addressing the issue head on? There are many more who avoid original thought and the effort of honestly making an argument. Instead they simply diminish what others write with the trendy words of the day - such as 'lazy' and 'trope'. That's not an argument - it's a get out because you cannot or will not address the points made. It's so easy to rely on trite put downs and platitudes. It's not so easy to think critically and then organise your thoughts into an argument. Posting links to what other people have written is just as lazy - it's another avoidance tactic.
I can imagine that at the time, socialism did seem like a good idea. However it has so spectacularly failed every time that it has been tried that to continue to chase the seemingly unimplementable Utopia must come with lashings of selective vision - whether that be conscious or not. And it seems that the only way that some can reconcile the disconnection is to either claim that:
- That wasn't real socialism.
- Some successful capitalist countries with high taxation are socialist counter-examples.
For the first, Western socialists all applauded those socialist states at the time; they just swivel on a sixpence after they fail.
And for the second, socialism actually means something:
'What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labour. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labour time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour cost. The same amount of labour which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.'
Which is often converted to the 'people' owning the means of production. The 'people' do not own the means of production in any Scandinavian country.
As always, trying to treat an argument seriously is futile.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I think the queen has kept the monarchy going by being totally hands off. The issue will be once Charles takes over (and arguably William after). Both, Charles esp, seem quite opinionated and with him having being heir for 50 years and not exactly young Chalres will be keen to leave a legacy and that may just involve him sticking his oar in just a bit too much and destroying that. But i'd prefer the role the Queen plays (technically has power but doesn't use it) to a president who has power and with a mandate from the people can result in one individual having far to much power and ability to erode rights.
The role the Lords has played recently has been a surprise to me (and disappointing it' them rather than the Commons that've better protected the common man) but I still don't like the idea of parties being able to bring in more peers to gain control of the upper house and the cost involved with that. My opinion of having it filled via PR of the general election vote is still my favoured method of going forward with it but accept it does have limitations and could turn it into a box-ticker for the government. But I do think it could result in people using it as balance against the ruling party as well as no party would likely be able to gain majority control of it with 50%+ of the overall vote. Definitely hereditary titles should not be given any voting power - no legitimacy in that at all.
The role the Lords has played recently has been a surprise to me (and disappointing it' them rather than the Commons that've better protected the common man) but I still don't like the idea of parties being able to bring in more peers to gain control of the upper house and the cost involved with that. My opinion of having it filled via PR of the general election vote is still my favoured method of going forward with it but accept it does have limitations and could turn it into a box-ticker for the government. But I do think it could result in people using it as balance against the ruling party as well as no party would likely be able to gain majority control of it with 50%+ of the overall vote. Definitely hereditary titles should not be given any voting power - no legitimacy in that at all.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
what are you referring to by here?
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
I'm not. It's a quote from Marx.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
the quotation marks (no pun intended) were a clue!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You’re the one playing “no true socialist” though. You’ve decided if it isn’t successful putting the means of production in worker control immediately it’s not socialism. Then you pick a few failed states to make your point. It’s a fundamentally unserious argument. Like me saying post war Syria proves libertarianism is a bust and therefore all right wing thought.
Political ideology isn’t anything like as homogenous or easily defined as you seem to wish. “Socialism” is an umbrella that stretches to include everything from social democrats to communists and anarchists in some cases. It’s simple not well defined enough to make the kind of sweeping statements you want to make.
Been thinking about “cancel culture” a lot recently as I have a couple of mates who seem to think it’s the most pressing issue facing the western world and I’m relatively dismissive about it.
Every time they show me an example it’s essentially somebody being called out publicly on something and sometimes that results in a lost contract or job opportunity. Sometimes rightly so and sometimes people have actively pressured an organisation to “cancel” them. Distasteful, but essentially free speech in action and the side effect of everyone now having a voice via social media.
The only time I find it occasionally concerning is in the academic world. Even in these instances there is nuance and examples where the individual held views that would not be suited to any workplace. It doesn’t equate to “cultural Marxists” taking over the education system and essentially having soft power over the country, which is how it is presented by some.
It’s interesting how this has suddenly become a bigger issue and is always used against somebody broadly on “the left”. Never seemed to be a thing when 4chan were doxxing people or when Jordan Peterson wanted loads of university courses and departments cancelled because he didn’t agree with what they were teaching.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Every time they show me an example it’s essentially somebody being called out publicly on something and sometimes that results in a lost contract or job opportunity. Sometimes rightly so and sometimes people have actively pressured an organisation to “cancel” them. Distasteful, but essentially free speech in action and the side effect of everyone now having a voice via social media.
The only time I find it occasionally concerning is in the academic world. Even in these instances there is nuance and examples where the individual held views that would not be suited to any workplace. It doesn’t equate to “cultural Marxists” taking over the education system and essentially having soft power over the country, which is how it is presented by some.
It’s interesting how this has suddenly become a bigger issue and is always used against somebody broadly on “the left”. Never seemed to be a thing when 4chan were doxxing people or when Jordan Peterson wanted loads of university courses and departments cancelled because he didn’t agree with what they were teaching.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Everyone who voted leave is a racist, true story.
I am of course joking to prove your point.
