L.B. Neill
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB,
I understand. My last post was emotive. It formed a binary division into pro/anti social criterion. Too simplified- and humans are too messy to be dropped into such criteria.
Dawkins is not anti-social…
You see any talk of Eugenics can prompt emotive reactions. Best to be more considered (note to self!) in responding. 19th Century Social Darwinism is best challenged in its small ‘d’ Darwinism- otherwise I would run the risk of sounding anti-science.
Science, and it ethical usage is a complexity- complicated more so by political narratives regulating it… what a mind-field!
🙂
Eugenics! The topic might as well focus on Darwin: the survival of the fittest (used to justify the potters grave).
It is the worst form of essentialism- the greatest justification for the weak dying out. Some Capital- Darwinists use this argument often. You only need to read the forward to Jordan Peterson in Archipelago to realise this:
https://scholarfactcheck.com/jordan-peterson-gulag-archipelago/
Okay, not the best link, as the links are subject to a variance- but if you manage to download the forward, it will cast a light on this ideology.
Dawkins is an antipode to prosocial behaviour. So he might be… ? His attitudes to the Self and its primacy over the collective is concerning.
We are not a material mime of the Platonic taken for granted world- WE are social beings. We re not reflections of other species- fighting for recourses, killing one another to ensure our social line’s survival over the other.
There will always be ‘show dogs’ in this realm.
The facts and results of any study in that field will always depend on their constructs- and best served with caution.
Eugenics and social Darwinism are best left to the rantings of Nazis and mongers bent on reducing human experience into its sedimented form (a mirror only reflecting their own image).
I have no idea where my own rant came from- only a very concerning feeling (both rational and irrational) with any mention of Eugenics and its bastard brother, Darwin.
Forgive me that,
L.B
Alan, the wonderful thing is- people are able to change a stance. And it is very great to see that people can both fess a new postion or state later that it was wrong
I have posted some post- impossiblism statements on this forum in the past, and when I return, a little red faced (and dare a smile), I have been given the space and permission, and kindness, to correct it.
Why else educate on socialism! We change stances and positions through life. And I am sure public discourse to help correct anti vac, covid denial in the near future. We all need that patient posture to change… some alas, may not…
ALB- I’m sure the medical narratives on mask wearing will shift all the time- but in the meantime it is one tool in the challenge of COVID,
Be safe,
L.B
We are amid a pandemic in Melbourne. We have been in lockdown for some months.
The science of public safety in these times should not be dismissed: but some seem spurred on by notions of ‘freedom’. It seems the term freedom is subjective and depends on political expression. The economy should be healthier than our health for some of these demonstrators! It is the nearest example of antisocial, individualist centred oddities, and it is so ‘typical’ of a pre-social class of beings.
A group arranged a demonstration against medical necessary restrictions.
Has commerce over health entered a new normal- a new dangerous expression? Below is an ABC news report:
or try this link- the link seems ethereal!
It seems the defences capital may use to justify the economy over science has amplified- but to who’s expense.
I am promask- and if you wear one too- it is mutual, beneficial and has a shared altruism… If I mentioned that statement at their rally, I would have no teeth left.
L.B.
Post Note:
Just in case- I do not aspire to vanguard ideas- and any mention of a pre-social class is not aimed at a Loche like division into greater or lesser class of conscious beings. It is that it seems a protest of a few over the greater health of the many. And that few seem captured by a nodal point located in ‘laissez faire ‘ ideations, and at all costs- but deaths are its collateral damage.
Good reason for the edit option!
Alan,
Thank you for the encouragement and information.
I had sent an email to Trevor.
This forum has been very helpful- challenging yes- but most helpful!
Be safe…
Hi Marcos,
There have been unsafe narratives from the States and Brazil: promoting the right not to wear masks with freedoms.
Scientific medical advice has been put aside in favour of ideological point scoring- thus sending out mixed messaging that is harmful to populations as a whole.
Physical distancing measures and use of ppe is essential to reduce the spread of COVID. You know, this individualism “I’m alright Jack’ attitudes is being promoted by the Right- there is certainly a disregard for evidence or practice based science.
I hope all is well for you- during isolation- we are social beings, and it is difficult at times: but necessary.
LB
Alan,
I like and I am alloyed to :
“The other is that we are social, cooperative and will collaborate with one another for mutual advantage and benefit. and require little State coercion to do so.”
The first strand is rule governed/following behaviour which assumes we are interpellated into a non-agency state.
Should I join SPGB- it resonates that desired end goal! Any branches close to Melbourne?
Regarding masks and the law- we could have our faces photo printed onto them. There is a beauty to it.
Alan, thanks.
I have recently struggled to locate a position within socialist narratives (abstain/non reform, agitation/get all angry, or intervene/reform).
The intellect and the heart are a funny thing- and to divide them into oppositions is an artificial social construct. It is like seeking a primacy of idealism over material, or base over structure. Like some recent debates on the forum…
Capital discourse practice (the economy speaks) has impacted on marginal communities during this crisis: dare I say one of may crises. It has made front line service provision hard. Many workers in this position are tired.
The whole notion that health is patent- or that our cost of study is steep (bio-psycho-social study) does not lesson the heart response that some helpers feel. I want reform- but I want that right through the social totality. I know many others who do too. Pity that health and welfare is contingent on a dominant political ideation.
Thanks,
L.B
In Melbourne we are going into lock down again. Today the totals climbed into the 200s. This may seem small in global terms: but the r rate could go beyond that
In responding to homeless populations, the risk of lethality is increased. Private rooming houses/crisis accommodation and so on, receive significant amounts from the welfare spend. Many people are referred to rooms that are neither cleaned (COVID cleaned) nor barely vacated. And profit… well… it opens up the binary division between profit over health!
The structuration of capital public-private interventions generates discord between health over profit for some: and profit over welfare for many. On the street level it is disunified and presents a point of antagonism that amplifies all our subject positions.
We have enough to buy health and risk reduction: we have money spent on out behalf to provide partial risk reduction in health.
How did we get here: not a question…
Alan. You posted an interesting article on Richard Wolf (and that debate ensues- never finding closure).
Reformist ideas mean an intervention to reduce death within a capital mode. It appear at times, better to do something, rather than say: ‘what is: is”
So I do something- I think capital ideas assume economy over health- but we must assume the antipode.
Regarding reform- I can’t stand by and not intervene, I have seen so much loss.
May health find you- for many it fails them
L.B.
It depends on how you read scripture! For some it is capital business as usual. For others: lets get rid of money.
Good thing is: we are all reaching for that utopia- Jesus painted the place ‘bright red’.
Alan: the day of doom is always followed by bloom- sounds quirky… but there yo go!
Hi Johan,
I relate to you. What you experienced from your supervisor is sad. The idea that any form of care is a burden to the state is so wrong.
Rod is right: in socialism, this would not even matter, and your decision would be a matter of choice- and all would support it.
Ableism (that is discrimination on ability over disability) is not acceptable.
When society calls we who have ‘disability’ (be it physical or mental health) a burden- it really hurts. We have so much to contribute: and your question to your supervisor is testament to your pro-social kindness.
like rodshaw said: it will not go bankrupt. And yes money decisions do impact governments.
I really support whatever decision you make- as that is the social thing to do. There are so many people I know who would relate to your post- and stand by your choices- through all it entails!
Be safe,
L.B.
Hi All,
It has been some time since I had posted.
ALB (#204729). Ever since Capitalism (and its classical and feudal parents) came into being, the question of the poor has been answered by the ruling elite- what to do with them?
A universal basic income is a re-articulation of the welfare state: and we might be told that this is our lot (our crumbs) and consume it. Use it to pay for services (a self managed fund with limits) and if we run out of it- wait till the next funding year.
There have been some right wing commentators (Patterson in Canada) who say that being poor is a naturalistic event: potters graves exist throughout history. I am reminded of the ideas: if money is used- poverty ensues.
I hear the concern: UBI is a re-articulation of payments to keep people alive, and only just that! Welfare is a marketplace- the poor spend what is given: that spend is then returned to profit-centred services.
Nothing changes.
The left and the right have a tug of war- and nothing changes in the communities I work. Same poverty: different policy.
ALB, thanks. I wish the stance moved from marginal to central political discourse- otherwise, more of the same
L.B
Meanwhile in Australia,
The energy mix includes the debate on coal.
Could coal be part of the ERF- and state funding be a part of funding coal to save the environment!
I won’t comment- it speaks for its ‘coal self’- my that lobby is powerful.
L.B
Marcos. It has advanced. It will continue to do so. The tendency it takes has re-articulated itself since it had to deal with the ‘Third Wave of Capitalism’
Newer mutations of capital expression have peculated into so many industries- even welfare has been marketised. There is profit in poverty as liberal governments decentre the state- government to governance, and from traditional welfare agency to private individuals seeking profit from government spending. It is not new, but it is a model taken from private health, and being introduced into welfare.
It is a model being rolled out in the green economy and we are interpolated into liberal/capital ideology: Carbon credits- pay to pollute. It is not in societal control, but Establishment control, and many buy into it.Any alternative is shut out- the capital narrative seeks to eliminate any signifiers or protest.
But, for the want of a better word-left narrations are joining up and moving closer to socialism. Most people operate from taken for granted ideas, limiting or limiting their ability to think outside of capital modes and social relations… yet there is an increase in people being drawn to socialism- from a soft, to a hard left; and then to possibly think- socialism.
I do realise now the ‘cardinal sin’ of reformism in SPGB. Yet there is a movement, seen as reformist at first, yet not quite: it can consider protecting the worker in a hostile capital environment. I would wish that it would join up in the last instance, with no partisan ideations, to form an achievable and socialist totality.
This is what some socialist tendencies seek, or some say limits it. If I could attend a meeting of SP in person, I would have jumped at the chance- but I am too far away.
I don’t think most socialist groups want a power under worker/power over capital version of reformed capitalism that stops at the ability to just live- but a socialism that says power-with, and we all thrive.
The socialist idea is increasing, protecting our position is not reformism: it is stopping the severity of a sociopathic class from harming the survival of our position and of our people.
May you be well,
L.B.
pgb,
Thanks, I had to think about your question- and it still feels like any answer I give is incomplete.
There are so many Socialist expressions- like Linux forks, or like the improvements from Marx to Faircough.
I feel the end result should be the same for all these points.
Was there anything wrong with the end game I had said, or the common goal of socialism- a social mode. I am sincere about that.
The problem is: how do we deal with our circumstance until we vote the end goal in? I hate this division, and its effects on socialists. The end result should be the same.
I am new to this landscape- and now I realise all the divisions, factions and separations. We are the same, the same goal… what the hell happened before I got here!
I think this way, or that way. I should think that, or think this. Modernism or post modern.
I am told it by many groups- this is the the only one. Do I become a independent socialist again, and let that division go? I am not sure. All I feel is that there is so much division, but I share the end result with SP- a evolution toward a mode of socialism.
pgb, I am not sure if I could answer your question- but you researched the post. I hold the end goal of socialism, but how we get there is varied.
If I mimed the only way to get there- challenge me. But it is the same end goal, and I am trying to work it out.
pgp- let me know your socialist expression in Oz, so I can get an understanding of the critique. But I will say, there is more than one road that leads to Rome- and it has the same ends. This should be a point of conversation, and of action.
Please, In your answer, don’t shout at me in words- I am trying- but I feel I will avoid all this division, and become a solitary socialist again, for any expression that is different is frowned upon.
This should be about socialism and the climate, sorry I had to respond in this way to a question.
L.B.
