L.B. Neill
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Alan,
It is more of the same rhetor, the co-op is a cardinal synonym for capital modes of production: it reminds me of ‘the best form of welfare is a job’… or ‘own your own welfare”.
Co-ops are small ‘c’ capitalist formations- and mime their formations on their use of ownership- yes between small producers, but between members of the co-op. If you are not in you are not captured by its benefits.
The new political party (a joined up socialism Wolff advocates) will play the same tropes, and share the crumbs between its members… the best welfare?
“If that party could also become the political voice of a growing worker-coop”: and this sounds like another version of an elite speaking on behalf of those who could well speak for themselves. Elect a leader to express the diverse voices, who in turn, coagulates that chorus of voices into a singular ‘what is best for yo’ narrative that they deem is best for them.
Biden, Trump or the reanimated Lincoln (brought out of cold storage) make the fatal insistence: we are for the people, as long as we decide according to our best interests (the few over the many)… or any capital centred democracy will have the same fatal link to Locke- a small few are enlightened, get enlightenment and capital, then you are in a position of decidability…
An interesting aside on American behavioural motivators when it comes to voting habits.
“In one of the study samples, altruism accounts for 44% of the underlying motivation and personal duty accounts for 23%. Meanwhile, selfish motives account for only 13%. Individuals explain their voting motives as centered on doing well by others and their causes and by their own ethical commitments—their selfish consumption concerns play a very minor role.”
Interesting that self reports of ‘selfish voting’ is 13%! Tapping into the duty and altruism markers can hold potential for a socialist message.
Some of the statistical formulas in the article are esoteric but don’t let it put you off.
Leon,
We know now that in di-party states the left and the right wrestle in the elusive and imagined centre. Oscillating power between the Democrat and the Republican (compromising and complimenting) leads to an antagonist show – and it is a performance for a centre: things go on as usual after any capital election (it is an impossible for the master narrative and the signifying practice of capitalism to change itself).
We can and yet can’t have it both ways: as either/or is more of the same. There will be poverty no matter who wins, and in the long history, this is a constant, it is a c, that is tied and unchanging.
Vote for the lesser or the greater, or withhold your vote- if we argue over it, imagine how conflicted the States must be?
Could either of their presidencies lead to an acceleration of the class struggle: revealing to a divided nation that capital di-partisan states is the same idea but differing masks?
The ethical statement of capital contestants should be: “…For the status quo…” and cast your vote, and go back to work, if you have a job left.
… And while the workers go back to work, or seek it… the regime will still drop $$$s of bombs and decide the pittance to be spent on health care. It is not fascism it is ‘under new management’ and under “old management’ for the new centre is informed by its old centre.
L.B
Alan, thanks. This topic is often neglected in studies on power relations.
And in light of this topic, a glass of fresh water- class snobbery is often lost in power studies of late.
Odd thing is- I was mocked for having a non identifiable accent at Uni- I sounded Irish and foreign at the same time. A Yorkshire mother and a Dublin father.
I posted earlier that Peggy Mc may not understand class poverty- but now I think she does… or I would assume or dare think she does not know (sorry peggy).
I related so much to the post on working class discrimination in tertiary studies. I will hold that- and use it.
It has been an issue for too long.
Are the wigs the Tories don made of real real human hair? Kind of upset the idea of Tory vs Whig.
This issue should not be argued in any democracy- food should not be political- not ever.
If food is political in capital- then food security is a commodity.
Some of us live on a diet of shite and onions, some live on lobster, and some live on air plankton.
It is still a problem 116 years later because the mode has not changed.
Thatcher, Thatcher, the milk snatcher!
I have a vague memory as a little kid of this being played out.
James: is the idea of herd management back on their books… Sterilise the unproductive, the criminal and the dependant!
Take away the food and we become compliant, or more docile to idealogical induction due to nutrient denial.
Give my ability to reproduce for a bowl of soup. Yet it seems to go against market numbers- big numbers requires population growth.
Over 50m turn out already…
I am not into predictions in early voting- and based on the systemic failure of the polls last time… it is a 2 horse race…
As to political violence predictions- let us hope that does not eventuate… I am not the best keyboard warier, I close my eyes at violent words.
Essentialism is a flawed logic.
For example- I am Irish and wear a green hat. Adam wears a green hat- so he must be Irish.
Essentialism is profiling, and racial profiling too. Imagine if you went to court and had been charged with a crime- because your name is Adam, and people called Adam are always guilty. So Adam is guilty too.
That is why measuring power relations and its use is crucial and according to its use- otherwise, those who do not use toxic forms of privilege get tarred with the same brush.
If we use essentialist ideas, we make a fatal error-it assumes an entity has similar characteristics according to its classification- and then is true for all organisms who have the same characteristics- such as as an idea held by a Britain, will be the same as another Britain, according to their appearance.
Imagine this: I go on a cruise ship, and have a holiday. The ship hits trouble and we all bail overboard. In the water, cold and freezing, a life boat appears. The life boat is filled with white hooded men who are using an inverted burning cross to guide them. They see me amid the waves, and amid people of differing cultures. They say to me, based on my skin tone: “come aboard” and do not want others who are not the same to be on their life boat. “No thanks” I would say and take my chances on the waves, with my fellow people of all kinds. I would rock their boat, spit water on their inverted and burning cross, and join the struggling waves with everyone else.
Essentialism struggles with such an idea: because it divides people into groups, labels them according to their characteristics and treats it as a truism. If I related to essentialist truism, I would have got on the pkk life boat according to likeness. But we are not essentialist in nature, so I take to the waves with my kindred- and even that does not say we are all the same.
So avoid using: you are white, so you oppress. But we need to be mindful too- some whites use their supremacy ideology to oppress, such as those who actively support supremacy and apartheid. Last year in New Zealand, the Mosque shootings demonstrated such toxic action.
Privilege as a term has broad usage and application- and any discourse community should unpack it, and be mindful of how it is used.
ALB,
Yes you are right.
She is using it in regard to her class position. She is being self reflexive, some what apologetic to her own position in the hierarchy.
Later on it it takes a moment to consider unearned privilege and its opposite: unearned non- privilege Funny language.
She wants people to know that she is basing her position on her own class, experience.
If we look at her writing, she gives a clear insight in to her social position- seems privileged… and you are right- it is a study based on those who are privileged trying to make sense of it, and atone for it.
And it shows that in America, the generalisation of race is deep. It does fail to account for class divisions too, and poverty.
I posted the articles not to support it hook line and sinker – but demonstrate that the ‘middling people’ are evaluating their position. Deep in the foot notes she says she is basing it on her experience, and to take it out of context, diminishes the experiences of those it was not meant to…
ALB, I starved as a kid (and I do not mean poor and limited resources- I mean starved). I went without food too often. It did not make me privileged- but it made me more aware of those who had abundance- Peggy in some way, can’t see those experiencing real poverty but at least privilege studies is trying to locate an answer. It is a start- next time I will email SPGB website to her organisation.
And so privilege studies (not that it is a whole field of study- but a part whole of social studies) is being used to evaluate violence and its use. It is divided. It can be used depending on who is speaking. Using semiotic theory can counter the binaries of oppression, and by people who know real lived experiencing of oppression.
The Peggy article shows how the notion of privilege is being talked about, but it also requires those who experience non- privilege to find voice in that debate… to be given a centred position to say what it is.
We all know violence happens in groups and between groups. But, we should be mindful of the essentialism that goes with its study.
The thing is, The privilege studies I was introduced to in anti-oppressive practice where we focus on our own unique experience focussed what power we have, or not have. It makes us aware of the power relations in our day to day work.
David Bowie wanted to do a musical theme on 1984, but the trustees of Orwell’s estate said no.
Bowie is gone. And now the author’s moral right (50 years since death?) is close to being spent!
No matter.
This is an often forgot Irish folly into Spanish politics. Dumphy arrives to support the fascists. He gets fired on by the people he wants to support, related to the colour of their shirts. The moral- do not support fascism. The bell tolled for him.
A step toward for Catholics who feel sub-alternative due to their sexuality.
In many jurisdictions- blended families and rainbow families have been around and making families for a long time.
Those who are Catholic had felt torn- grace was theirs but doctrine is conflicted.
Legal coverage: civil union. Little out of sorts- does that mean ecclesiastical law can create a civil law?
I am perplexed- any clues?
And:
https://www.nationalseedproject.org/Key-SEED-Texts/white-privilege-and-male-privilege
Thought I’d post this material. It is part of Peggy McIntosh work with SEED- it gives some insight into privilege studies. It sits more on the left, but it has influenced many disciplines from Social Work, Education, race studies, to… too many to count!
Some ideas are useful, and some require self reflection- She noted in footnotes that it is self reflexive analysis in some ways, and is not meant to be used as a ‘one size’ fits all (being white has differing experience effects).
I stopped watching Trump Vs Biden- annoyed at the idea that socialised care was being treated like a game of hot potato…
ALB,
White privilege is used by those who seek advantage over another, based on race.
The white hood brigade, and so on, is the most basic definition of power over.
It is those who exercise power over another based on skin tone. That is the simplest definition.
There are evaluations at this moment that are being discussed and assessed about all forms of privilege, and it needs to include in-group violence based on lgtbi communities too. but the science is developing…
Toxic privilege is being assessed, and constantly reviewed in my circles.
White racism only applies to ‘whites’ who use their skin tone to seek power-over those who are ‘non-white’.
The examination of power is not, do I say it again, an essentialism, but based on those who wish to benefit from it over the welfare of another.
A lot of jurisdictions created laws to try and eliminate racism- but it continues, and it continues in societies that are ‘not white’ too (being white does not come with a genetic marker of being racist). It is political and it is constructed.
That is why we use x/y frames to assess violence- to evaluate to uses of violence/ and who experiences it.
It is not helpful to focus on white privilege as the single causal factor of oppression- and in fact it does a dis -justice… we need to focus on who oppresses and who is oppressed. Identity single issue politics create divisions and camps between the science- but the focus is on observing what divides us, and what brings us together.
And so we need to find a term that defines it.
If looking at a binary division: say white over black causes further division- and it gets used to create a never ending slide into who is entitled or who is more oppressed- then we compete and the term that defined it will get lost… yes, racism. That is the key signifier, the one that divides us.
Calling someone privileged due to their race is not a proper examination of power- it needs to be measured. You will be surprised about the results. I was trained to look at the naturally occurring data that can’t be falsified. As they ae public statements.
So we need to look at the distributions of wealth, who controls it, and who benefits. It is the same thing as power- who uses it and who experiences its effects.
So we oppose racism, we oppose gender violence and we oppose apex power structures.
I really wish we could conduct a meta-study on all forms of abuse and call it out.
It is not that the term it self is toxic- it is that it should be used to define toxic privilege,
