|
lmaoboy1998 posted:While you may believe that people will necessarily start being nice to their wives and stop calling people coons as soon as you give them a fairer economic deal (which seems questionable to me as the rich haven't stopped yet), there are ways to achieve tangible forward movement on important social issues while the world revolution isn't happening and it's fairly patronising of you to poo poo on those for not being 'pure' enough, or for not always having an economic dimension to them. As I said, analysing these things is important but seeking to fight one element of oppression without reference to others and the fundamental socioeconomic sources is meaningless. I'm not advocating pushing them to the side, but rather incorporating them into a more all encompassing ideological position. Also, changing anything successfully while retaining a capitalist framework is a dead end because capitalism is built on exploitation, oppression, and inequality. While it exists they will exist. This is where I have a major problem with a lot of more liberal thought. Minor concessions to historically oppressed groups within a capitalist framework do nothing but create the superficial illusion if progress. Take the gender pay gap debate. It sounds very reasonable to say that men and women should be paid the same, because if course they should. However look a bit deeper and you realise that (in the west at least) it's generally only in high status jobs that this is an issue: sure female board members get less than their male colleagues but supermarket workers for example get the same regardless of gender because of the class context. Equalising upper class gender income without challenging the capitalist system it exists within only benefits a very small subset of already highly privileged women. It does nothing to make things better for those who are truly at the bottom of the pile. In instances like this apparently progressive legislation is just a vehicle by which the liberal bourgeoisie hijack ostensibly socialist movements, and they often do so in a way that allows them to condemn anyone who calls them out as regressive. It's fair to believe that ending capitalism is necessary to truly end oppression because it lives and breathes by encouraging exploitation and the commodification of everything - people, resources, the environment. It reinforces and encourages traditionally exploitative relationships and expectations all round because they create markets. Make up and diamond companies would be out of business in minutes without patriarchal attitudes continuing to be endemic within society so they have a direct interest in maintaining them While it is true that 20th century socialist states have often had problems with sexism/racism/other isms this is down to a few things. First they were all heavily modelled on Soviet communism which as we all know was very top down. It enforced an ideology on a largely uneducated population that was not quite attuned to it. In most cases the laws instituted by the ruling governments were actually significantly more progressive than those passed by capitalist governments. That's not to say that there weren't problems with the way governments handled certain groups (homosexuals for example) but that's down to the time period along with Leninist theory (vanguard etc). Encouraging Correct thought and progressive attitudes among the population as a whole is important in order to both provide the proper environment for a direct challenge to capitalism and ensure the subsequent maintenance of the revolution. However we should not delude ourselves into believing that doing so without putting it into its economic and class context achieves anything beyond the benefit of the already privileged. Thinking that is I'm sure a type of liberalism.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Fans posted:A bit late but Alison McGovern has resigned from a Labour committee looking into child poverty. At least Margaret Greenwood kicked Esther McVey out and seems pretty reasonable, or I'd just give up hope. Frank Field is an especially odd one, he's just a loving nutball and I'm not sure how he ended up in Birkenhead or in the Labour party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I can't believe this isn't getting called out more. Its not like hospitals close at 6 on a Friday evening and you wait outside until Monday morning. I might be wrong but I get the feeling that almost everyone is on the doctors side if only because one of hunts big gently caress ups is letting people learn just how little junior doctors earn when most people just accepted that they were well off
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
This is the PLP's chance. All they have to do is go to some pickets with a few sandwiches. Avoid blaming this on Corbyn. If they wanted to go for gold they could get the BMA to become a Labour party donor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Jose posted:I might be wrong but I get the feeling that almost everyone is on the doctors side if only because one of hunts big gently caress ups is letting people learn just how little junior doctors earn when most people just accepted that they were well off No I mean with this bullshit about 'We need a 7 day NHS!' from the tories. It already is a 7 day NHS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:No I mean with this bullshit about 'We need a 7 day NHS!' from the tories. It already is a 7 day NHS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:UKMT January 2016: davey cameron is a pie Next month's title please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/10/labour-expecting-6m-loss-in-funding-through-trade-union-billquote:An expected £6m fall in Labour’s annual income as a result of legal changes being proposed by the Conservatives will make it impossible for the party to maintain its current structure, staffing or offices, a confidential party document released to the Guardian reveals. LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
So here's a question: when the government simply changes the law whenever it finds existing legislation inconvenient or an impediment in its grab for power, why should you, or I, or anybody else feel any more bound or obliged to obey it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Because they'll lock you up if you don't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
only if you get caught
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:No I mean with this bullshit about 'We need a 7 day NHS!' from the tories. It already is a 7 day NHS. When has that stopped the fuckheads who want to demolish our best and most valuable public service for the benefit of their cronies and their bank accounts from lying through their loving teeth to do so. The 7 day NHS has always been a fallacy put about by the Tories to gently caress up said NHS. The NHS always has been a 7 day service and will be right up until it gets dismantled by Jeremy loving Hunt. LemonDrizzle posted:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/10/labour-expecting-6m-loss-in-funding-through-trade-union-bill Too late, sadly, it's gone through already, and it will thoroughly gently caress Labour's money. I mean 100k new members is about a million quid extra, but it's nowhere near enough to offset this. Oberleutnant posted:So here's a question: when the government simply changes the law whenever it finds existing legislation inconvenient or an impediment in its grab for power, why should you, or I, or anybody else feel any more bound or obliged to obey it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
To remain the servant of the written law is to place yourself every day in opposition to the law of conscience, and to make a bargain on the wrong side. But the wrong side has sticks to beat you with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
winegums posted:This is the PLP's chance. All they have to do is go to some pickets with a few sandwiches. Avoid blaming this on Corbyn. They really, really, REALLY should. It would be a hard row to hoe, the BMA has always, ALWAYS been resolutely apolitical, and it would be a tough ask for the publishers of one of the world's premier medical journals to take sides, but... they really should be considering it at this stage, because the Tories have shown nothing but contempt for the people the BMA represent and the service they provide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:So here's a question: when the government simply changes the law whenever it finds existing legislation inconvenient or an impediment in its grab for power, why should you, or I, or anybody else feel any more bound or obliged to obey it? There are more examples from history, but even this biased account shows the Met getting a loving good hiding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
winegums posted:This is the PLP's chance. All they have to do is go to some pickets with a few sandwiches. Avoid blaming this on Corbyn. Come on, this is doctors we are talking about. The gold stuffing only goes one way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:So here's a question: when the government simply changes the law whenever it finds existing legislation inconvenient or an impediment in its grab for power, why should you, or I, or anybody else feel any more bound or obliged to obey it? Only a half hearted response (sorry), but letting people choose which laws to obey according to their whims has consequences for law and order, and civil society as a whole. If a hard left government decided to do the same to facilitate a mass nationalisation programme, you might support them, but hard right activists could take to the streets with the same justification. It's a pretty subjective position to take, when you consider that government has every constitutional right to change existing legislation that impedes its legislative programme. Ref. the poll tax riots linked above, I'm a fan of keeping things orderly generally, but I have been reading some Emma Goldman recently thanks to this thread mentioning her, and her thoughts on political violence are quite interesting. It would take something pretty earth shattering to bring me into violent confrontation with the state though. I'm not much of a political activist I'm afraid.  General China posted:Come on, this is doctors we are talking about. There's four or five doctors on my facebook thread constantly posting about the strikes (all blatant Tory voters) and I've been resisting the urge to call them out on it, as it will probably be counterproductive. But seriously, if doctors turn around after all of this and vote Tory... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
General China posted:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IeFS6S06w8c Ah, the days when the average Brit would get off the arse over politics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Prince John posted:There's four or five doctors on my facebook thread constantly posting about the strikes (all blatant Tory voters) and I've been resisting the urge to call them out on it, as it will probably be counterproductive. But seriously, if doctors turn around after all of this and vote Tory... As a junior doctor myself, a few months ago whenever someone posted anything Labour-centric to the facebook group there was a barrage of responses urging them 'not to make this political' and not to 'alienate Tory voters'. That has steadily dribbled away as the mess has continued, and now you see quite a few posts praising Heidi Alexander and wishing for the downfall of the Tories and significantly less people are willing to come out against it. I'm reading it as a good sign, and personally I would feel free to make some gentle pushes in that direction with your friends. Maybe not 'call them out' on their past voting history but definitely remind them that Labour are the people to vote for if you don't like what has happened to the NHS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
That there was a seemingly top level conspiracy to conceal institutional child abuse didn't cause people to rise up and reinstate la Terreur 2.0 is proof enough that people don't give a gently caress in most cases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:That there was a seemingly top level conspiracy to conceal institutional child abuse didn't cause people to rise up and reinstate la Terreur 2.0 is proof enough that people don't give a gently caress in most cases. As we've seen with the virulent reaction to the NYE events in Germany: sexual assault only matters when you can blame it on brown people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Only a half hearted response (sorry), but letting people choose which laws to obey according to their whims has consequences for law and order, and civil society as a whole. If a hard left government decided to do the same to facilitate a mass nationalisation programme, you might support them, but hard right activists could take to the streets with the same justification. It's a pretty subjective position to take, when you consider that government has every constitutional right to change existing legislation that impedes its legislative programme. I can't subscribe to the notion that government is legitimate by virtue of being government. I think that idea is rooted in a certain (false) conviction or ideal that we've all heard at some point: that although parties and politicians may differ on the means of achieving it, they're all ultimately united in the common goal of doing What's Best For Britain and all have our best interests at heart. If this were true it might(?) justify unquestioning obedience to government, but I don't think that it is true. Some things that government does are simply wrong, and some laws are bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
jabby posted:As a junior doctor myself, a few months ago whenever someone posted anything Labour-centric to the facebook group there was a barrage of responses urging them 'not to make this political' and not to 'alienate Tory voters'. Yeah I remember those early day threads. Avoided the blame game, since saying "well you voted Tory what did you expect?" was never going to win friends. I did take the opportunity to point out that quite a few people were complaining about the underground train drivers' strike only a few months earlier, and to realise that the media and Tories are bastards. Quite a few medic friends seem to have become more left wing now  . I really think the labour party could make inroads here, especially if they worked with the BMA to help it manage its PR, sort out media training for some of its reps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:As we've seen with the virulent reaction to the NYE events in Germany: sexual assault only matters when you can blame it on brown people. It's funny because the German commentariat is bending over backwards to NOT blame it on brown people, instead choosing to suggest women always keep men "at arms length" and that maybe they just shouldn't dress so provocatively.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:It's funny because the German commentariat is bending over backwards to NOT blame it on brown people, instead choosing to suggest women always keep men "at arms length" and that maybe they just shouldn't dress so provocatively. Counterpoint: read Europol Thread from the day this was announced and try a drinking game on how many posters gleefully proclaim this proof that the filthy Arab must not touch our rape-free European soil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
General China posted:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IeFS6S06w8c and yet observe that the primary goal of the poll tax - to devolve the marginal burden of local authority aid to local government - was nonetheless achieved successfully, and on the pro-decentralization platform that was empowered by anti-poll-tax movement's choice to speak through themes of Scottish or urban council sovereignty
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Counterpoint: read Europol Thread from the day this was announced and try a drinking game on how many posters gleefully proclaim this proof that the filthy Arab must not touch our rape-free European soil. Countercounterpoint, Europol has been a horrific wasteland of xenophobic bigots since almost as soon as the thread was started. But you're not wrong, it's a loving nasty thread full of shitheads. Except the Portuguese, they mostly seem alright.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
the poll tax riots were fundamentally driven by a desire to pay less tax, and this is fundamentally more amenable to a Tory platform than to any socialist one. The man who promises to reduce your taxes when you're poor will always be overshadowed by the man who promises to reduce your taxes forever, as the Americans have discovered; it doesn't matter whether the numbers don't line up, because voters are innumerate. the Thatcher regime correctly realized that pushing the tax power downward would, in the long run, collapse the popular consensus to fund them, but they were both too greedy (wanting to reduce the degree of redistribution immediately, in the same package of reforms) and too honest (assuming that voters would see through through unsustainable tax cuts). The successful line of attack, as proven by Norquist across the pond, is to just cut taxes with wild abandon. Raising taxes then becomes your opponent's problem. Good luck with that! Militant confused it for a sincere popular movement in socialist-anarchist solidarity against the Thatcherite system and would be utterly blindsided by the years to come. Conversely, both New Labour and Tory 2020 would go on to take careful notes on the role of pro-democratization pro-decentralization pro-consultative rhetoric in presenting virtually any kind of reform as an empowering response to popular demand. ronya fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Countercounterpoint, Europol has been a horrific wasteland of xenophobic bigots since almost as soon as the thread was started. Speaking as a descendent of a Portuguese colony: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Ah, the days when the average Brit would get off the arse over politics. Aye, and only a year late too! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Imo the Portugese get a pass on colonialism since the minute they established a colony we diplomatically forced them to pass legislation that wiped out their own native industries so they had to spend all their colonial profits buying from us poo poo that previously they made themselves. We are such assholes lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
I'm usually able to stomach threads like that but holy gently caress the EuroPol thread is beyond saving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Portugal really hosed up decolonisation tho it is an especially clear demonstration of the concept that decolonization proceeds by the metropole's interests, not the periphery's
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
^^^ France probably managed to decolonize while still wholly maintaining their empire in real terms. It's pretty funny how the only reason the liberals in this thread can take the moral high ground is because the UK didn't take millions of young men from a repressive, misogynistic culture and religion. Then again, it's not like any of you have attractive women in your lives you'd have to worry about being sexually assaulted. The Saurus fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Who're you calling a liberal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:^^^ France probably managed to decolonize while still wholly maintaining their empire in real terms. who are you
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Dabir posted:who are you a communist not yet enfeebled and addled by 21st c. identity politics which exist to direct anger and protest in a manner acceptable to the ruling class
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:It's funny because the German commentariat is bending over backwards to NOT blame it on brown people, instead choosing to suggest women always keep men "at arms length" and that maybe they just shouldn't dress so provocatively. There does seem to be some truth to this in terms of a certain section of the political class, and I can understand even if I think it's wrong. The right, and perhaps some more center-ey kind of people, are gleefully jumping all over this with anti immigration rhetoric and I sympathise with the desire to push back. But to allow that to justify minimising the impact of sexual violence or to just engage in victim blaming is a bad path to go down. Unfortunately no one seems to be saying that the two political issues should just be dealt with separately. Sexual assault is wrong. Restricting immigration in a humanitarian crisis is also wrong. They can both be true. We don't need to have some strokey beard discussion fest about where the perpetrators are from to recognise the basic morality of both issues. .
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
I think that restricting immigration to non-rapists during a humanitarian crisis is a good thing. Or is this where the liberal says that those men would be raping whether they were in Syria or West, so western women not willing to suffer their fair share of sexual assault is racist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Let me go and tell border control that when they let people in they should make sure not to let anyone in who has the rapist box on their passport ticked. I mean it's a good job you said that because the rest of the world didn't know about that possibility until you did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:26
|
|