|
serious gaylord posted:Noted. I'll make sure its in the OP of the November thread. Dont forget to include monster munch, boats, loving rectangular/triangular toast and History's Greatest Monster himself - Stephen Fry. In other news, I went to Tentish Klown's workplace the other day. If he is the guy called Sam I have to disappoint people and say that he is either not a lizard, or has an incredibly good disguise.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Zero Gravitas posted:Dont forget to include monster munch, boats, loving rectangular/triangular toast and History's Greatest Monster himself - Stephen Fry. I'm afraid I'm not Sam. But I'm not a lizard either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Right Wing Posters rollin in the thread He then crashed the tank and ended up upside down in a hilarious fashion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
If you're not a Marxist, you must be a Ukipping shitlord. There is no other explanation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
ronya posted:yes, but the reason those projects are not moving forward is not "we can't find financing at 7-8%", surely. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubacc/1201/1201.pdf Tax revenue is being lost through the use of off-shore arrangements by PFI investors and the effect has not been adequately assessed. The Committee is concerned that the Treasury has no plans to address this matter. Some PFI investors reduce their exposure to UK tax through off-shore arrangements. Yet the Treasury assume tax revenue in their cost-benefit analysis of PFI projects. The Treasury could not tell us if PFI investors had paid tax in the UK on profits and on equity gains, or whether corporation taxes had been collected from PFI companies..The Treasury should measure the tax revenues from PFI deals and should ensure that this is taken into account in future assessments of PFI against conventional procurement. However, since at least some of the PFI projects discussed in that report are already financed by UK pension funds (via a group called Innisfree), I'm a little confused about how Boris' proposal is supposed to free up large quantities of additional cash. I appreciate the potential for efficiency savings and economies of scale from consolidating small funds into larger ones, but he seemed to be suggesting that there were additoinal benefits to be had. Coohoolin posted:Maybe we could have someone who'd rather engage and say why they think trying to apply concepts like proletariat and bourgeoisie nowadays isn't relevant or counterproductive instead of just saying it's silly or whatever. LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Perhaps, as the guy who raised the subject and is planning to write a thesis on it, you could kickstart the discussion by outlining your position? Fair do's. I've been discussing the issue with my friends and colleagues for a while now, and we always get bogged down identity politics and the difficulty of finding a general framework. One common theme is usually that exploitation and hierarchical abuse can affect upper class people for their race and gender, and thus the term "proletariat" is no longer viable as it excludes race and gender issues from a potentially unifying definition of struggle. Of course the problem there is that you end up going to far in the other direction and have everyone separate into groups dedicated specifically to certain issues (not that this is a problem) who then refuse to interact with each other because they feel their issue is dismissed by each other (this is most definitely a problem). So I've always been of the opinion that what was needed was a reframing of the terms of debate in order to reach a reductionist binary choice- either you're exploited and harmed by the status quo, or you benefit from it. Proletariat or bourgeoisie. The trick is to redefine exploitation and harm to be as broad as possible labels for anything from financial and labour exploitation (class issues) to sexual objectification and harassment (gender issues) to racial abuse and ableism and so on and so forth. That way the term "proletariat" expands enough to be inclusive and still useful in a way that it provides those on one side with a clear end game and enemy. The difficulty is convincing people that more issues than their pet project matter and that you can't deal with one and not the others without being a hypocrite.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:One common theme is usually that exploitation and hierarchical abuse can affect upper class people for their race and gender, and thus the term "proletariat" is no longer viable as it excludes race and gender issues from a potentially unifying definition of struggle. Of course the problem there is that you end up going to far in the other direction and have everyone separate into groups dedicated specifically to certain issues (not that this is a problem) who then refuse to interact with each other because they feel their issue is dismissed by each other (this is most definitely a problem). Coohoolin posted:So I've always been of the opinion that what was needed was a reframing of the terms of debate in order to reach a reductionist binary choice- either you're exploited and harmed by the status quo, or you benefit from it. Proletariat or bourgeoisie. The trick is to redefine exploitation and harm to be as broad as possible labels for anything from financial and labour exploitation (class issues) to sexual objectification and harassment (gender issues) to racial abuse and ableism and so on and so forth. That way the term "proletariat" expands enough to be inclusive and still useful in a way that it provides those on one side with a clear end game and enemy. What are you looking in comparison with when you say 'benefit'? Compared to an ideal non-hierarchical society or just compared to the expected results of implemented solutions? Coohoolin posted:The difficulty is convincing people that more issues than their pet project matter and that you can't deal with one and not the others without being a hypocrite. Saki posted:If you're not a Marxist, you must be a Ukipping shitlord. There is no other explanation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Yes, intersectionality is important, and will probably end up being central to defining the modern proletariat. I'm of the view that sufficient reductionism can increase the functionality of intersectionality, and the whole point of it was to reduce the "oppression olympics". No issue is more or less important than the other, and finding a definition of an overarching form of oppression to which the term "proletariat" can apply. I mean there's a reason third wave feminists lash out against white middle class second wave ones like Julie Burchill or whatever- there's an implicit recognition that feminism without class or race or trans awareness is counterproductive and hypocritical- because it would simply elevate one oppressed demographic into a position of bourgeois power vis-a-vis the remaining proletariat. It's essentially a reworking of Gramsci's old question of finding the "historic bloc".
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
When there is a Tory government don't get sick The Guardian posted:Hospital patients could be asked to pay for their “bed and board” if funding does not match increasing demand, a senior health service manager has said. This kind of poo poo only gets suggested when Tory scum are in power. Not sure where they've pulled the £75 from considering that in 2010, the last time I did a clinical trials costing, it actually cost £450/night to stay in an NHS bed, and I expect that it is a fair bit more expensive these days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
This sounds like another "let's float the idea and see what the reaction's like" scheme from Hunt & Co. Bonus points for getting a technically-independent lackey to do it for them, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Aromatic Stretch posted:We need more right wing posters (relative to the typical user) in here not less. Perhaps, if they were to actual debate and discuss instead of posting lovely one liners then bailing out only to come back and do it again once the discussion has moved on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Aromatic Stretch posted:We need more right wing posters (relative to the typical user) in here not less. What's up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:This kind of poo poo only gets suggested when Tory scum are in power. Labour had huge budget shortfalls in the NHS during their last few years in power. It's hardly a Tory-only problem. Also worth saying that this is a hospital administrator musing about this - there isn't a politician who would dare to propose this, as it would be political suicide. Prince John fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:
I thought Blair and Brown entertained this idea for a while a few years back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:no it's great we'll run off all the moderates and then we can elect our own candidates on the strength of all six of us! Hey, that was the SNP game plan!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
You're all a pack of loonies and I don't agree with many of the things you argue are desirable, enforceable, possible to enact into law or even a good idea. Thread is better (read: more interesting) when people are actually loving debating things, more ideas are presented and we draw from deeper experience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:This sounds like another "let's float the idea and see what the reaction's like" scheme from Hunt & Co. I'm not so sure. "Pay for your bed" is not going to be popular anywhere. Do you really think Middle Englanders are going to nod in agreement, much less poor people? They'll hate it, they'll all hate it. I don't think the guy planned to stick the boot into the Tories, but this isn't going to help them. His message is basically "if the NHS doesn't get the funding it needs, YOU'll be paying for your own hospital beds" and the entire country will turn and look expectantly at the politicians, waiting for them to explain how they will prevent this dire future from occurring. They'll look particularly hard at the party that's been in power for the past 4.5 years. This is Daily Mail gold ("NHS says or does something disagreeable") but they'll have to spin it hard to make the Tories look like the saviours of the NHS. The Tories don't want to fund the NHS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Margaret Thatcher posted:What's up? No... it can't be! We... we killed you. We watched you die! Begone, monster; you don't belong in this world!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Saki posted:If you're not a Marxist, you must be a Ukipping shitlord. There is no other explanation. Capitalism is bad sorr-eeeee 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:No... it can't be! We... we killed you. We watched you die! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
twoot fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:I don't think the guy planned to stick the boot into the Tories, but this isn't going to help them. His message is basically "if the NHS doesn't get the funding it needs, YOU'll be paying for your own hospital beds" and the entire country will turn and look expectantly at the politicians, waiting for them to explain how they will prevent this dire future from occurring. They'll look particularly hard at the party that's been in power for the past 4.5 years. And, barely concealing his smirk, David Cameron steps up to the podium to announce that these are tough times, and we must protect our NHS, with tough decisions. Then more Seriously this isn't an unexpected development, they've got away with this 'our hands are tied we need to reform the entire system' crap so far. Are people suddenly going to stop buying the there's-no-money-left argument now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Aromatic Stretch posted:We need more right wing posters (relative to the typical user) in here not less. I'm not so sure about that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
In actual "interesting" Lib Dem conference news, the party leadership got defeated on an amendment to change the party's policy on airport expansion. Gatwick were lobbying pretty hard for it, to the point of providing free internet around the Armadillo. It's a bit of a bruise for them given that the leadership did manage to convince the party yesterday to delete an amendment moved by Evan Harris to put banning faith school selection discrimination into the party's equalities manifesto. Relative thread darling Julian Huppert was a vocal rebel on both issues. In other conference-related news, Julie Bindel is not happy about the party voting to treat violence against sex workers as a hate crime: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Aromatic Stretch posted:We need more right wing posters (relative to the typical user) in here not less. Yeah, right now it's an echo chamber of people saying things like "poor people should not go homeless or starve", or "healthcare is a right". Clearly we need to balance this out with "if you don't like working for £56 a week, starve" and "go back to poland". That'll improve things no end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Yeah, right now it's an echo chamber of people saying things like "poor people should not go homeless or starve", or "healthcare is a right". Clearly we need to balance this out with "if you don't like working for £56 a week, starve" and "go back to poland". No, there's differently some middle ground here, see there are some people that sound pained and apologetic when they suggest that maybe we should kill the poor 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
mrpwase posted:No, there's differently some middle ground here, see there are some people that sound pained and apologetic when they suggest that maybe we should kill the poor I thought there were some labour voters? **edit Ugh, misread
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
TinTower posted:In actual "interesting" Lib Dem conference news, the party leadership got defeated on an amendment to change the party's policy on airport expansion. Gatwick were lobbying pretty hard for it, to the point of providing free internet around the Armadillo. I enjoyed the interview last night on the BBC with a conference delegate who likened the LibDem's coalition role to that of a battered woman staying with her husband because "they loved each other deep down". Bunch of disgusting Quislings, from top to bottom. The only good thing that could come out of the LibDem conference would be the news that they have committed mass suicide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
mrpwase posted:No, there's differently some middle ground here, see there are some people that sound pained and apologetic when they suggest that maybe we should kill the poor Always relevant, and still amazing. Even if the creators aren't Correct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:You're all a pack of loonies and I don't agree with many of the things you argue are desirable, enforceable, possible to enact into law or even a good idea. Thread is better (read: more interesting) when people are actually loving debating things, more ideas are presented and we draw from deeper experience. This isn't the Beeb where we can pack a bunch of right wingers in in the name of 'balance'. Do you want everyone to walk on eggshells around the special snowflakes that think Thatcherism is gonna start working any day now as long as we punish the poors a bit more?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Right Wing Posters rollin in the thread Voting labour is now being UKIP? What you smoking buddy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:This isn't the Beeb where we can pack a bunch of right wingers in in the name of 'balance'. Do you want everyone to walk on eggshells around the special snowflakes that think Thatcherism is gonna start working any day now as long as we punish the poors a bit more? Thatcherism wants to punish them too much, the left doesn't want to punish them at all. We need to find the correct amount to punish them. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Fair do's. I've been discussing the issue with my friends and colleagues for a while now, and we always get bogged down identity politics and the difficulty of finding a general framework. One common theme is usually that exploitation and hierarchical abuse can affect upper class people for their race and gender, and thus the term "proletariat" is no longer viable as it excludes race and gender issues from a potentially unifying definition of struggle. Of course the problem there is that you end up going to far in the other direction and have everyone separate into groups dedicated specifically to certain issues (not that this is a problem) who then refuse to interact with each other because they feel their issue is dismissed by each other (this is most definitely a problem). So I've always been of the opinion that what was needed was a reframing of the terms of debate in order to reach a reductionist binary choice- either you're exploited and harmed by the status quo, or you benefit from it. Proletariat or bourgeoisie. The trick is to redefine exploitation and harm to be as broad as possible labels for anything from financial and labour exploitation (class issues) to sexual objectification and harassment (gender issues) to racial abuse and ableism and so on and so forth. That way the term "proletariat" expands enough to be inclusive and still useful in a way that it provides those on one side with a clear end game and enemy. Well, I'm not sure what I was expecting but I don't think it was this. If the proletariat encompasses everyone who has experienced any form of financial, sexual, racial, or disability issue, doesn't that effectively make it equivalent to "anyone who is not an able-bodied straight white male with money" ? That's certainly a pretty inclusive definition, but it also seems a bit too broad to support any kind of meaningful analysis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Can we not just like, have our own struggles, but not get in the way of each others? It'd be kind of a poo poo scenario if it turns out the banker we're trying to hang from a lamp post is also X, and the group doing the hanging aren't X but are Y, so clearly it's another instance of Y oppressing X, and hang on, perhaps the one doing the hanging and the one getting hanged should switch places? Perhaps we should figure out how to make sure intersectionality doesn't turn into privilege rock paper scissors. I've no clue how to go about that, but it's definitely a better option than merging all struggles into one single set of proles and burgersy, where everybody is both and therefore we're all the bastard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Well part of the problem is that by not trying to create an all encompassing movement which reflects the different struggles you'll almost inevitably miss part of the cause that you were trying to fight for anyway, like second wave feminism becoming white middleclass womens issues, workers rights ignoring the relation between work and home life, etc. Humanity also has a bad habit of overlooking the oppression of others when it suits them so if you're geniunely egalitarian you shouldn't really be too comfortable with just leaving others to their struggles else the powers that be offer you a dirty deal and you end up being a new oppressive group. Just throwing everything together obviously creates a huge mess as well but it's better to at least have an eye towards bringing everyone together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Well, I'm not sure what I was expecting but I don't think it was this. If the proletariat encompasses everyone who has experienced any form of financial, sexual, racial, or disability issue, doesn't that effectively make it equivalent to "anyone who is not an able-bodied straight white male with money" ? That's certainly a pretty inclusive definition, but it also seems a bit too broad to support any kind of meaningful analysis. Even more inclusive - "able-bodied straight white male with enough money to not have to work for someone else" once you count the labour exploitation mentioned. Very thoughtful post though from Coohoolin. I guess the point of such a broad definition is not to enable meaningful analysis but to get the 90% to work and vote together against the 10% in practical politics? Prince John fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:"anyone who is not an able-bodied straight white male with money" I was mean to my boss once. I think that means I'm bourgeois now. It does perhaps pave the way to convincing a majority that this is a pretty poo poo deal for everyone and so maybe we should create a new system, but you then have to make sure that system isn't created by 2014 vintage Owen Jones and is therefore bound to be dragged rightward again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Mao was actually good as hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
oh man I'm finally living the stereotypical english experience as foretold by the prophetsLightningproof posted:Mao was actually good as hell. You ain't going to make it with anyone, anyhow!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 22:32
|
|