L.B. Neill
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Alan,
“Is there anything wrong in saying collective or social ownership, rather than always using common ownership? Are there better alternatives?”
This question really caught me. In capital formations, okay, society, normalising judgements attach themselves to word use: deeming one expression legitimate over another. For example ‘collective’ is considered negative in its use- and ‘community’ is preferred over it. ‘Community’ becomes more legitimised in its usage as it fits with social/community as capital. The terms ‘collective or social ownership’ are the villains in capital thinking as any full on liberal associates them with communism, socialism; and so seeks to ‘abnormalise’ (I know that is a suspect spelling) their usage in popular political speech- subordinating them to impolite usage.
I for one use them proudly ‘collective and social’ ownership- my least preferred term that has taken traction is social capital: now who owns that, and do we have to pay to use it!
Regards
L.B
Robbo,
It sounds like a national tug of war: they will be at it indefinitely, covering their own mashed steps from this ongoing divide.
And this ongoing divide is being fought over by individualist notions of left:right. It will not end with that kind of ideological twisting by national identity politics- ‘a tragedy of the commons’!
Robbo, what is your understanding of the partisan positions; and this ceaseless deadlock?
L.B.
One more thing, on the link Robbo gave me I tried to add to a debate, and read Matthew’s and Alan’s contributions in conversation with glover.
Does Glover really thing it, but I responded:
Glover: Hi all, well well well if ther is one thing that brings joy to my hart other than BREXIT
is to get a crowed of champagne socialist hot under the collar, to read the emails telling me off, has given me and friends some greet fun, the thing we all agree with is you just dont get it ! your emails sound like a preacher giving a sermon in a pulpit, you say your pamphlets get the message across perfectly clear, well you would do wouldent you, have ever heard of the saying horses for courses , put it to the acid test, give some of your pamphlets to friends who are not part of your political scene and ask them to read them, then ask them to give you a a honest appraisal, come on show me that you have the balls.
l would very much like to hear ther views. kind regards rod glover
Anonymous said… Which is me L.B.
The working class have narratives and opinions- they are not empty vessels- Locke might say no, but look at the control, alienation, and ignorance he has woven about us.
We are full of ideas, of culture, and more- we have life and meaning in spite of power over ideas putting a boot in our faces, calling us small and empty. I agree with Matt, it is not his high horse- it is the waft of BS that says we are vessel needing to be filled- I am full of meaning, and socialism supports me.
L.BAnonymous said… and me again:
Glover, Is this debate going to help- you seem so angry, like that man in Canada: Patterson. This division is not good for socialism- and the reality is, we can read the pamphlets, and we need credit for being able to read and spell a little.
I was not part of the political scene Alan and Matt are- until recently… but they have been understandable, and encouraging.
Contribute to the debate, leave division to the capital agenga- no insulting the common cause.
Be kind and not cruel,
L.BIn my rushed state of responding, I have miss spellings too- but I own them!
But if you click on the link Robbo sent me, you will see the SP do its best- and without anger.
Matt responds:
The cheek of you. I’ve been active in working classpolitical activity for over 45 years. There is no such social class as the ‘middle class’.They became the capitalist class absorbing the aristocracy etc.
If someone HAS TO work for a wage or a salary they are working class, however well paid they may seem. Even if they send young Dimkins to private school and own, probably a mortgaged piece of property and have ‘notions of upperosity’. They are three salary checks away fom a foodbank..
The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)
Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class.
If someone does NOT HAVE TO work for a wage or a salary, because of their ownership of resources as above, in stocks shares or inherited wealth, although they may choose to do so, they are members of the capitalist class.
The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth.This is what we mean when we say there are two classes in society. It is a claim based upon simple facts about the society we live in today. This class division is the essential feature of capitalism. It may be popular to talk (usually vaguely) about various other ‘classes’ existing such as the ‘middle class’, but it is the two classes defined here that are the key to understanding capitalism.
It may not be exactly clear which class some relatively wealthy people are in. But there is no ambiguity about the status of the vast majority of the world’s population. Members of the capitalist class certainly know who they are. And most members of the working class know that they need to work for a wage or salary in order to earn a living (or are dependent upon somebody who does, or depend on state benefits.)
Matthew, thanks.
What does this have to do with ER? It is that this shows that Socialism once born, stays with you: thick and thin- and if someone, like Glover, responds with hate and putdowns, then would you listen to him, or to members of SP, and their similar!
Glover, I would like to say to you in response to “show me some balls”- here I am, and I can read and do not need to be fed by the reader.
Thanks, and sorry for the long post,
L.B.
Hi Robbo, I read the link.
Words are the fundamentals of chat- we are social beings, and our chat/language underpins it.
Our day to day conversations and how we behave is a flag, and it separates us from the capital overlords and the Stalins who have taken so much away.
Words can promote negative stereotypes. And at times those not familiar with socialism can be confronted by the media scare archetype: ‘hang’, ‘war’ ,’them’ and so on. It paints a picture that wrongly defines us… revolution and rope. We are not that: we are liberation- and we take many forms, sharing the same centre: far from talk of ropes.
Many socialists I know, and who encouraged me, even here, are goodly people. We are not atypical- we are sensible and sociable (not pre-social at all).
I appreciate your ability to raise conversation… and encourage debate.
Imagine introducing someone to socialism as ropes swinging from lamp posts- they would run the other way! Imagine the opposite: an end to the history of struggle!
“That is precisely how I first became acquainted with the notion of socialism entailing the abolition of the wages system, in a hurried conversation at a fellow worker’s lathe.”
This is how it happens: we feel something is wrong with the fairness; and we feel the oppression of our position… and then we question our environment… and then someone says a thing about it- and we are interpolated!
It separates us from from what was once ‘known and familiar’ and we seek a new ‘possible to know- and new familiar’, and the lathe worker is my history too- but selling wines as a hungry student.
There it is- and the internet is an extension of those epiphanies, it will not replace them for human to human contact- but it is important.
I can be like a stopped clock- right but twice a day- and “what the” for the other hours!
We get it wrong and okay- but we debate.
Hope you are all well,
L.B
Alan, that last post is so depressing- on face value!
T-shirts we buy… and then we move on to the next popular and transitory capital inspired message of the disaffected…
The current sit in is a Great et al protest to the ruling elite, and it has been met by pepper spray- very noble. But it is the fashion, and changes little over time (it is: hear me, and then I will go away).
Socialism is a long term goal state and I have been confronted by the forum activities here- personal change agency, that ‘changed my mind” on many things. We could have projectors with slogans pop up- but then it is a pop up: momentary and appealing to the temporal idea.
What happens here is not pop up- but life idea changing… and meeting (e-meeting) on the SP forum is effective and credit is well due- You did not sell me a t-shirt: but you made an idea worth wearing, worth holding, worth wearing!
I don’t go to work with the red shirt/flag, but I talk about the social- it is in those personal connections, networks and whisper campaigns that socialism becomes effective- as well as others seeing our values alloy with our behaviors…
So a positive- what the SP are doing is working… and its effects on peoples’ views are lifelong.
I want the t-shirt- but not from that vendor- it needs to be free, and accepted for free.
It would be good to see a projector though, up on the palace with the website and flag!
L.B
I really prefer the metaphor that we, although as yet limited in size and scope by our numbers, with our educational contributions, are ‘gnawing at the foundations of capitalism’
Matthew, I understand. To gnaw seems like a long, but effective action- like me, a long movement from the left to the emerging social (the real social).
I know it is not a bird anymore- but a movement.
So I will gnaw- at the foundations: one chat at a time. I just need to find the ‘distinctive way’ to express it. But it has already been so… I think my teeth will get very tired with this new ‘gnawing’
L.B
Thank you Marcos,
I will continue with using the tools, the narrative theory, the deconstruction and so on- but it will dust itself from the binarism of left/right. The truth is there: it will always be right over left- and the wings… the answer was in front of me all along, wings! Wings of the same bird, and capital remains centred and is its organising principle.
You where at this crossroads over five years ago.. yes it hurts a little to realise reformism has beaten such a weight on my thinking…
Oh I have so much re-reading to do! Starting with Matthew’s recommendations, and perhaps renegotiation of surplus theory, and what negations in my own theory base lay ahead, I do this, and I share my renewal, as it is important- thank Marcos, good to know the journey is shared by a person who has been here before…
L.B. Neill
Thanks Matthew,
The need to interrogate the ‘taken for granted’ is so crucial- and today especially. Your Bob Dylan finale was the ideal closing argument!
Discussion is so important to challenge reified rule following behaviour- or the same old dance continues. sorry for the odd metaphor- I don’t have capital as a dance partner, but would much prefer to dance with the struggle ahead- it is far more honest and congruent
🙂
Post note to comment:
Have you noticed that any failure of a socialist agenda is prefaced by looking or using naturally occurring data that is created by capital/totalitarian based states/policies that purport to ‘testing’ the socialist mode- then draw on their theoretical analyses from rational economics- deeming doomed
Neo liberal policy says the best form of welfare is a job- and the best jobs the market provides are welfare jobs… wage slave positions, and ones that suspend democracy while at work. But for the networked, the CEO and the ruling indolent, they enjoy the economic entitlement we are discouraged from even questioning; even desiring- or we are considered welfare dependent!
It seems nations ‘test a prosocial model’- see it fail- and then say: “see it has failed” and then continue with defending their position (yet opposed by their counterpart) to continue with their ideas, for their ideas are what most people know and are familiar with.
They say it will fail- but it was never put to proper practice- Do you trust a capitalist to implement a socialist premise? They see no profit nor any very personal gain. They might say there is no profit in being social, and all are individuals. And then before we know it- market forms of welfare are created to ‘manage the poor’.
The problem is, if they assess it, they will draw their own summations, conclusions, and so on- their narrative is business as usual, Under New Management, and so on.
What a problem- this problem surfaces in the global, national and local discourse.
And in so many ‘brands’ of socialism- this issue can take many different forms of signification, it becomes difficult to see the wood for the trees- but the capital vociferation hammers the same consistent message: Capital over labour, ruling over the ruled… me over you or mine over yours.
Just a vent, but seeking purpose in it,
L.B
Hi, L.B. here,
The idea Marcos raised is poignant:
‘The concept of socialism has been completely distorted and twisted by the left-wingers, the Leninists and the right wingers. It is going to take many years to repair the damages, by the meantime the workers are electing their own class enemies, and marching behind their own rulers. In my dictionary it is called: Class conciliation’
This is one I have struggled with recently. I do sit on the left, and I take an intersectional approach like so many others- the idea that we can take an oppressive experience (gender, class, race and so on) and join it to points of equivalence with a broad ranging societal subalternity- but join them together to create a diverse voice of resistance.
Sorry, I am trying to refine this.
Capitalism, in the form of many late advent conditions, seeks to emit new narrations for its own survival- perhaps the left/right dichotomy is its invention. Here socialism is linked or coupled to left ideas (over socialist ideas) and bonds the left to a stale mate with the right. This means nothing changes. The thing is- the right wing agenda surges in popular discourse.
The “conservatives don’t hate socialism, they hate equality” has opened up more space- space to consider:
The ideas of the ruling elite are the ruling ideas- mental and material! Okay I finally said it.
I might say I am on the left- or Marcos, thanks, might say I am confused about socialism (there are so many modalities out there: so, so many schisms):
‘and the new wave of the so called socialists will add more confusion too’
There is that- there are so many ways to be ‘socialist’ and I have moved between so many.
I am reminded of that: the ruling elite, the ruling idea- Do I follow or interrogate the ideas fed to me? I will reflect on that, who made the idea, who was its ruler?
I may of digressed from the ‘nordic myth’ a little-
The left seeks equality with the right- economic socialism. Now I might see laizzes faire – market socialism that benefits the elite over the non elite- got there in the (self poorly defined) end.
Can I say the newer interplay away from Left/Right has led me to think more deeply- thank you.
I needed to contribute this: so I can be intersectianal, but not fall into the stale mate of ‘social-economic’ polarities supporting the status quo.
L.B
Post comment:
Any feedback to my last comment: can it be sensitive to my learning curve, and realise that I do have ‘burn out’ from vicarious first respondent work… and maybe reading laclou and mouffe for too long.
Are most post moderns this difficult- or is it just me!
Dave and Matthew,
Thank you for your corrections.
I guess I have been fighting for so, so long- near on demanding the government pay attention to adequate funding for the sector I work in, that I have entered the ‘parlor room’ that Marcos had mentioned. Maybe it is the New Left- or toiling so hard to have our voice heard, that communication of a simple message has gone with pats on the head: “work harder to help the poor”. I am tired of that middle space, and sacrificing my own socialist principles to earn a living, and to work toward addressing inequitable distributions of wealth.
“at least he is talking to us”- they are sharp words, but I embrace the correction. It is just that I need here and now solutions to what I do, and what many other social sector workers do. We see people die, many times in the grip of social problems generated by capital control- so at time we might enter that parlor room, seek a revisionist agenda, and then feel bad afterwords… socialists are great at communicating, and the message has taken many forms for so long. I want a UBI, but I want it to be not basic, but full and meaningful- an end to poverty and class status. I would love my job to be redundant- but there is so much need,
Socialism informed me, and I am saddened that I negotiate with neoliberal funders, who talk of the price of care, even of funeral. But at times I have to enter that parlor room or space, and state concerns for money, money used to fund a vital response- and it is a grey area.
I am talking to you so I can get perspective, grounding, and renewed focus- so when the grey area presents itself- I can remain centred.
I hope my last post was seen as a act of sheer: what the, and not as a flippant compromise. I am in an oppressive system, yet toil anti-oppressively.
I need to open dialogue with those who are right in their political beliefs, if not to argue and wrestle for even the most basic- but I want so much to argue an end to capital control.
We all toil. At times I may of lost sight of the purpose. Thanks you two, really needed some cold water.
L.B
The UBI for some reason I am conflicted: there is a part of me that will see it as a reformist agenda- and a part of me that will see it as an immediate response to those very most in need.
Who created this dilemma: yes a reformist. Who will benefit: a reformist and a population in need.
It is the population in need that worries me; and that population is what I work with- yes I work in an oppressive system in an anti-oppressive way, but this a sting, and is concrete and immediate- it is not some removed debate for me, but if a family puts food in their mouths, or gets through the year- the day.
Then I see it as the parlor room of the left and the right- a polarity of the capital system. But I deal with the fall out, the deaths, and the despair- I could provide you with a clinical white washed narrative (that is best left to the money interested and the philanthropist.
Economic disparity is the conversation of the Left/ and the right; a fair share, or a fair go at making it.
I have to work in those divisions amid the political tirade of either side. What I do, sorry, what many people do who work to try and bring an end to the bullshit, is do something about it.
I do not feel I engaged in the rhetoric of the current system, but try to bring an end to it, in some kind way, some active way.
There has to be some room for communicating, even with the different, the centre, or the obscure right- to teach and to encourage people away from presocial policy and toward prosocial policy. Otherwise people like me in the day to day of it- we are putting off tomorrow time after time- but we need to know it makes a difference, and is being debated! Here I know it is, but be careful of casting some of us as sheer reformists. We still need to live on a wage, and help others until the deep democratic reality comes to fruition…
I solidarity, L.B.
