Cook'd and Bomb'd

Forums => General Bullshit => Topic started by: bgmnts on August 26, 2021, 07:32:16 PM

Title: Centrism
Post by: bgmnts on August 26, 2021, 07:32:16 PM
This is a random thought, but obviously there are a lot of centrist out there who are, ostensibly, socially liberal but fiscally conservative (if that makes any sense in reality).

But are there any people who are fiscally left wing but socially traditional? Is that belief even possible? I've noticed I've never heard this opinion before.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kankurette on August 26, 2021, 07:35:07 PM
Blue Labour?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: imitationleather on August 26, 2021, 07:35:42 PM
Quote from: bgmnts on August 26, 2021, 07:32:16 PM
But are there any people who are fiscally left wing but socially traditional?

Isn't this nearly all Labour supporters until a few decades ago?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: selectivememory on August 26, 2021, 07:35:54 PM
Quote from: Kankurette on August 26, 2021, 07:35:07 PM
Blue Labour?

Yeah, sounds just like them. Horrible people.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: bgmnts on August 26, 2021, 07:37:11 PM
Jesus christ totally forgot blue Labour existed.

Ignore this.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: peanutbutter on August 26, 2021, 07:40:13 PM
A lot of the people who voted Sanders in 2016 but went with Biden in 2020 would've likely been along those lines tbh.
The issue is that kind of leftist would struggle to build up an initial support amongst the leftist base, so they'd never get to the point of being a candidate for much of anything.



Blue Labour don't really show much in the way of leftist credentials, do they?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 26, 2021, 07:44:25 PM
"the left shouldn't focus so much on economic equality!" + "no opinion on foreign policy, immigration"

Centrism and progressivism are the same, but progressivism is the one we're supposed to like because of all the positive words they use. Essentially both believe that things get better by themselves over time and we don't have to make any radical changes, just sit back and bask in the glow of incremental change because every change is a positive one because someone wanted it?

Its moral cowardice when it comes to ideas and values. It saves you the bother of having convictions and maybe being wrong about stuff, because politics is just the idea that Society is heading to a perfect future all on its own and you just have to loudly hate Trumps or Patriarchy or Kony2012 or whatever it seems to be resisting that inevitable march to an english speaking utopia.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on August 26, 2021, 07:55:20 PM
Quote from: peanutbutter on August 26, 2021, 07:40:13 PM
Blue Labour don't really show much in the way of leftist credentials, do they?

Yeah I thought Blue Labour were socially liberal (ostensibly... they consider themselves socially liberal, but that basically extends to 'tolerates the blacks and the gays') and economically conservative.

The blue being to signify they basically just don't like the branding, stigma and guilt of admitting they're tory, so are co-opting another party instead.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TheBrownBottle on August 26, 2021, 07:59:46 PM
Quote from: imitationleather on August 26, 2021, 07:35:42 PM
Isn't this nearly all Labour supporters until a few decades ago?

It's still likely to describe the vast majority of Labour voters.  It is why polling continuously shows support for left wing economic policies, whilst also showing popular support for the monarchy, the armed forces and a lot of anti-immigration shite.  People who'd want social care brought back into the NHS, whilst calling for hanging to be brought back for nonces.

They're the reason why Labour has - correctly - pointed out for some time that their manifesto pledges have popular support.  And they're the reason that despite this, Labour can get results like 2019.

It might not often be conveyed that so many sit in the 'left of centre economically, but socially conservative' bracket because so few political figures in the media - politicians or newspaper gobshites - fit into that category.  Yet I'd be willing to bet that there are more 'left economics/right social' people in the UK than 'right economics/left social'.

Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: gilbertharding on August 26, 2021, 09:08:04 PM
So is the answer, really, for the Labour Party to hold its nose (if it even has to) and just be - even maybe just pretend to be - a little bit racist?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TheBrownBottle on August 26, 2021, 10:19:24 PM
It is likely the thinking behind the 'racist mug' Labour had in 2015.

I've no idea what the solution is - PR might have been one, as the Labour Party would likely split to represent those different parts of the electorate.  It would have been nice to actually vote with my conscience - I would comfortably vote for a new democratic socialist party at that point, knowing that I'm not simply assisting the Tories.  The Labour Party is already a coalition in any case - only with genuine democracy, those component parts might be able to form a govt.  And common ground on socialist / social democratic economic policies is likely to reduce social conservatism in the long term (if like me, you're of the opinion that racism and nationalism is often fueled by economic injustices - the 'easy' explanation given to the working classes for their unnecessarily reduced circumstances).

Under the present system - Labour looks shagged until the Tories implode.  Which they will at some point.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Bingo Fury on August 27, 2021, 12:09:05 AM
Quote from: bgmnts on August 26, 2021, 07:32:16 PM
But are there any people who are fiscally left wing but socially traditional? Is that belief even possible? I've noticed I've never heard this opinion before.

I seem to remember this was exactly how David Blunkett described himself.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 12:16:11 AM
Quote from: imitationleather on August 26, 2021, 07:35:42 PM
Isn't this nearly all Labour supporters until a few decades ago?

That was the Labour movement until a few decades ago and the shift from that explains the loss of the 'red wall' areas.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kankurette on August 27, 2021, 12:37:21 AM
Aren't Blue Labour very antigay and anti-feminist? You know, women deep down don't want jobs, we all want to be homemakers supporting our men?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: willbo on August 27, 2021, 12:41:36 AM
Angela Nagle, author of the book Kill All Normies, believes Incels/Jordan Petersen etc are right about a lot of problems in modern dating culture, mocks tumbler gender/disability culture, but seems to be economically socialist
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: dissolute ocelot on August 27, 2021, 08:38:30 AM
George Galloway.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Jumblegraws on August 27, 2021, 09:31:24 AM
The Daily Record caters to this political alignment, or at least it did in the 90s/2000s. I remember they were big fans of Section 28.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on August 27, 2021, 11:11:11 AM
Quote from: Kankurette on August 27, 2021, 12:37:21 AM
Aren't Blue Labour very antigay and anti-feminist? You know, women deep down don't want jobs, we all want to be homemakers supporting our men?

I very much doubt they are expressly anti-gay or anti-feminist - this is probably taking things a bit far, googling finds that they are on the TERF side of the the trans argument (no surprise) but TERFs are still feminists (I mean it is in the name).  I've no idea about their ideas on gay rights but I would be astounded in the modern age it they were openly anti-gay; I very much image it is pro-gay.

From my understanding its fault lines are immigration, defence and crime probably with some sympathies for organised (catholic) religion.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Huxleys Babkins on August 27, 2021, 12:20:52 PM
There are plenty of self-proclaimed fiscally left, socially right folks, but they are disingenuous wankers to a man. The sort of prick who goes on about stopping foreign aid to help those starving at home, before moving to say that those starving at home don't actually need the money because they own a TV.

They are more than happy to put their hands in their pockets for a worthy cause but, alas, everyone's on the take, aren't they? All after something for nothing. Such a shame. The wallet will just have to stay shut.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: greenman on August 27, 2021, 12:26:32 PM
Quote from: Huxleys Babkins on August 27, 2021, 12:20:52 PM
There are plenty of self-proclaimed fiscally left, socially right folks, but they are disingenuous wankers to a man. The sort of prick who goes on about stopping foreign aid to help those starving at home, before moving to say that those starving at home don't actually need the money because they own a TV.

They are more than happy to put their hands in their pockets for a worthy cause but, alas, everyone's on the take, aren't they? All after something for nothing. Such a shame. The wallet will just have to stay shut.

That seems more just right wing Tory to me, there being in favour of say the NHS(although not the wrong kind of help for the wrong people) and pensions seems to be the limit of any socialist tendencies.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on August 27, 2021, 12:28:19 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on August 27, 2021, 11:11:11 AM
I very much doubt they are expressly anti-gay or anti-feminist - this is probably taking things a bit far, googling finds that they are on the TERF side of the the trans argument (no surprise) but TERFs are still feminists (I mean it is in the name). 

Yeah but think NSDAP, a rose by any other name is not always a rose. 

And think Feminism - what is it?  Surely, equality (the pursuit of).  Whither equality where trans people are excluded?  Just as they think you need a cervix to be a woman, I think you need to believe in equality to be a decent feminist (or human).
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Huxleys Babkins on August 27, 2021, 12:40:54 PM
Quote from: greenman on August 27, 2021, 12:26:32 PM
That seems more just right wing Tory to me, there being in favour of say the NHS(although not the wrong kind of help for the wrong people) and pensions seems to be the limit of any socialist tendencies.

The subtle difference is that your classic Tory starts from the position of not wanting to spend money. "Fiscal responsibility" being the cornerstone of everything. "We can't help because there's no money" as opposed to "We could help, but the money would just be wasted".
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 03:33:22 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on August 27, 2021, 12:28:19 PM
Yeah but think NSDAP, a rose by any other name is not always a rose. 

And think Feminism - what is it?  Surely, equality (the pursuit of).  Whither equality where trans people are excluded?  Just as they think you need a cervix to be a woman, I think you need to believe in equality to be a decent feminist (or human).

Not really, feminism is/was about improving the situation of women. Whether you're a racist or a homophobe doesn't preclude you from being a feminist.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: imitationleather on August 27, 2021, 03:37:24 PM
Occasionally I've got into arguments with people who state a simple falsehood such as "You cannot be a socialist if you are racist or homophobic" as though it's a cast iron common sense truth but I always quickly realise debating with these people is way more trouble than it's worth and duck out.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on August 27, 2021, 03:39:55 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 03:33:22 PM
Not really, feminism is/was about improving the situation of women. Whether you're a racist or a homophobe doesn't preclude you from being a feminist.

transwomen are women
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kankurette on August 27, 2021, 03:42:17 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on August 27, 2021, 11:11:11 AM
I very much doubt they are expressly anti-gay or anti-feminist - this is probably taking things a bit far, googling finds that they are on the TERF side of the the trans argument (no surprise) but TERFs are still feminists (I mean it is in the name).  I've no idea about their ideas on gay rights but I would be astounded in the modern age it they were openly anti-gay; I very much image it is pro-gay.

From my understanding its fault lines are immigration, defence and crime probably with some sympathies for organised (catholic) religion.
I thought they said something about people being aggressively indifferent to homosexuality.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kankurette on August 27, 2021, 03:43:43 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 03:33:22 PM
Not really, feminism is/was about improving the situation of women. Whether you're a racist or a homophobe doesn't preclude you from being a feminist.
Feminism shouldn't exclude lesbian or bi women or women of colour[nb]For want of a better term[/nb] though. It's supposed to be for women in general, not just straight middle-class white women.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kermit the Frog on August 27, 2021, 03:47:17 PM
Not sure they're who jamiefairlie is looking to exclude
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 03:53:08 PM
Quote from: chveik on August 27, 2021, 03:39:55 PM
transwomen are women

Some women don't believe that though and they can still be feminists. Just as they can have any number of other opinions and still be feminists. This is a real problem for the modern Left, they believe there is a range of opinions that simply must go together. Not true, you can be a racist and not homophobic, you can believe in nationalisation and be a male chauvinist. People are complex and individuals.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 03:59:58 PM
Quote from: Kermit the Frog on August 27, 2021, 03:47:17 PM
Not sure they're who jamiefairlie is looking to exclude

I'm not trying to exclude anyone. I'm trying to explain that your opinion in a single issue does not define your opinions on any other issue. Some feminists vote Tory, some vote Green. It doesn't affect their feminist beliefs.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Goldentony on August 27, 2021, 04:01:42 PM
Quote from: bgmnts on August 26, 2021, 07:32:16 PM

But are there any people who are fiscally left wing but socially traditional?

nonces
lib dems
astronauts
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on August 27, 2021, 04:06:01 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 03:53:08 PM
Some women don't believe that though and they can still be feminists.

no. 'i'm fighting for the liberation of women except those i don't like' is not feminism

i don't accept this relativist talk. there are some objective truths in this world.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kermit the Frog on August 27, 2021, 04:15:06 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 03:59:58 PM
I'm not trying to exclude anyone. I'm trying to explain that your opinion in a single issue does not define your opinions on any other issue. Some feminists vote Tory, some vote Green. It doesn't affect their feminist beliefs.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that you're 'just simply trying to explain x'. I think you're being coy
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 27, 2021, 04:20:27 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 03:33:22 PM
Not really, feminism is/was about improving the situation of women.

No. Feminism doesn't just mean "wants good things for women" - its not just Platonic Good wearing a pink bow. It's a specific thing, specific people doing specific actions and writing specific texts about specific ideas. Those specific ideas will forbid you from being a tory or a libertarian if you hold them unless your beliefs are under nuclear-strength bad faith.

Feminism has historically been overwhelmingly concerned with women's legal status. Suffrage, right to education, right to work, free speech, legal rights as victims, rights of free movement, rights outside of marriage, reproductive rights, right to religious practice etc. I forget who said it but.. paraphrasing something I half remember.. its this relatively tight focus on legal status that makes feminism different from other emancipatory struggles like labour movements, anticolonial, antiracist, etc. even more so than it being about women are such. It's probably true that feminism is concerned with improving the legal status of certain demographics of women than it ever has with raising quality of life and emanicipation in general. Sometimes codifying legal status for one set of women will infringe on another's.

As such its fault lines today all relate to legal status in one way or another. My right to an education comes before your right to religious practice, my legal status comes before your right to identity by declaration, etc. Which is the marxist or radical complaint against it really, you can't guarantee peoples freedom or standard of living by guaranteeing them rights and status in a political order that was set up to treat them badly in the first place.

Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 04:47:00 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 27, 2021, 04:20:27 PM
No. Feminism doesn't just mean "wants good things for women" - its not just Platonic Good wearing a pink bow. It's a specific thing, specific people doing specific actions and writing specific texts about specific ideas. Those specific ideas will forbid you from being a tory or a libertarian if you hold them unless your beliefs are under nuclear-strength bad faith.

Feminism has historically been overwhelmingly concerned with women's legal status. Suffrage, right to education, right to work, free speech, legal rights as victims, rights of free movement, rights outside of marriage, reproductive rights, right to religious practice etc. I forget who said it but.. paraphrasing something I half remember.. its this relatively tight focus on legal status that makes feminism different from other emancipatory struggles like labour movements, anticolonial, antiracist, etc. even more so than it being about women are such. It's probably true that feminism is concerned with improving the legal status of certain demographics of women than it ever has with raising quality of life and emanicipation in general. Sometimes codifying legal status for one set of women will infringe on another's.

As such its fault lines today all relate to legal status in one way or another. My right to an education comes before your right to religious practice, my legal status comes before your right to identity by declaration, etc. Which is the marxist or radical complaint against it really, you can't guarantee peoples freedom or standard of living by guaranteeing them rights and status in a political order that was set up to treat them badly in the first place.

I doubt that many of the suffragette leaders weren't Tories.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on August 27, 2021, 04:51:21 PM
The movement (IMO) is not really about what Emmeline would've done.

Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 03:33:22 PM
Not really, feminism is/was about improving the situation of women. Whether you're a racist or a homophobe doesn't preclude you from being a feminist.

I don't agree I'm afraid.  Speaking as a feminist, the feminism I adhere to and have supported all my thinking life is the pursuit of equality. 

IMO, any behaviour which denies equality to others undermines feminism and certainly calls into question the bona fides of the person doing the denying.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 04:51:49 PM
Quote from: chveik on August 27, 2021, 04:06:01 PM
no. 'i'm fighting for the liberation of women except those i don't like' is not feminism

i don't accept this relativist talk. there are some objective truths in this world.

Yes there are but not in terms of human beliefs. People can hold highly seemingly contradictory beliefs. Just because you hold one particular belief does not mean you hold another. Even the word feminism or socialism are in many ways unhelpful. It's best to focus on specific single points rather than cobbled together idealistic causes than are often construed differently by different people.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Autopsy Turvey on August 27, 2021, 04:52:27 PM
Quote from: chviektranswomen are women

Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 03:53:08 PM
Some women don't believe that though and they can still be feminists.

What's more, many transwomen don't believe that, often because they are feminists. It's a funny old world!
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 04:53:20 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on August 27, 2021, 04:51:21 PM
The movement (IMO) is not really about what Emmeline would've done.

I don't agree I'm afraid.  Speaking as a feminist, the feminism I adhere to and have supported all my thinking life is the pursuit of equality. 

IMO, any behaviour which denies equality to others undermines feminism and certainly calls into question the bona fides of the person doing the denying.

That's a valid perspective but so are others. Who gets to claim the title for their views?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on August 27, 2021, 04:54:52 PM
There is no title.  There can be no claim.  There is simply logic versus emotion and ignorance.

Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 04:51:49 PM
Yes there are but not in terms of human beliefs. People can hold highly seemingly contradictory beliefs. Just because you hold one particular belief does not mean you hold another. Even the word feminism or socialism are in many ways unhelpful. It's best to focus on specific single points rather than cobbled together idealistic causes than are often construed differently by different people.

I don't think this is a useful argument, a Christian can believe fervently in the death penalty - does that mean that it's possible/acceptable/normal for a Christian to believe taking another human life is correct?  No.  No, it does not.  It means they're doing it wrong.  Quite likely because they're a dim-witted nasty arsehole (rather than a follower of Jesus the Christ).  There, I've said it.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 27, 2021, 05:00:33 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 04:47:00 PM
I doubt that many of the suffragette leaders weren't Tories.

In the UK most were liberals with socialist sympathies, with a few socialists and red thrown in here and there, and some Fenians in Ireland of course.

But even if so where belief in a universal right to vote (for white citizens) over 100 years fell on the political spectrum doesn't really mean much mapped on today's political axis. Around that time a lot of feminists were in temperance movements too, especially in the USA.

I think its best if you don't see it as whether you stand for or against a legal/equality/rights issue, but whether you see that issue as existing at all. And if you're a "classical liberal" or "radical centrist" or anything like that, than you're failing acknowledge failures and conflicts of legal status can exist, so I don't see how you can say you're feminist? It's one thing to say there are pro-sex work and abolitionist feminists - that's two sides of an issue before sides agree is real. But in a lot of cases (eg activism against transgender rights and opposition to rights of immigrants) its a denial that any issue existed in the first place, a refusal to take sides because taking sides would acknowledge that a problem of rights or status is in fact real.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Huxleys Babkins on August 27, 2021, 05:01:26 PM
If you're a feminist that excludes certain "types" of women, you're not a feminist, you just subscribe to a milder form of misogyny but the progressive label makes you feel better about it.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:02:31 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on August 27, 2021, 04:54:52 PM
There is no title.  There can be no claim.  There is simply logic versus emotion and ignorance.

I don't think this is a useful argument, a Christian can believe fervently in the death penalty - does that mean that it's possible/acceptable/normal for a Christian to believe taking another human life is correct?  No.  No, it does not.  It means they're doing it wrong.  Quite likely because they're a dim-witted nasty arsehole (rather than a follower of Jesus the Christ).  There, I've said it.

Ok, I happen to agree with you but can you not see that those are our opinions not facts? Ironically unless you believe in God, there is no absolute truths about morality, just differing views. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? It's just all opinion.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 27, 2021, 05:02:39 PM
Its a bit like saying you can be a Marxist and not think accumulation is a thing, because you think people in low paying jobs should have nicer houses. Its not about desired outcomes. Just vaguely wanting nice things for all women isn't feminism.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:06:33 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 27, 2021, 05:00:33 PM
In the UK most were liberals with socialist sympathies, with a few socialists and red thrown in here and there, and some Fenians in Ireland of course.

But even if so where belief in a universal right to vote (for white citizens) over 100 years fell on the political spectrum doesn't really mean much mapped on today's political axis. Around that time a lot of feminists were in temperance movements too, especially in the USA.

I think its best if you don't see it as whether you stand for or against a legal/equality/rights issue, but whether you see that issue as existing at all. And if you're a "classical liberal" or "radical centrist" or anything like that, than you're failing acknowledge failures and conflicts of legal status can exist, so I don't see how you can say you're feminist? It's one thing to say there are pro-sex work and abolitionist feminists - that's two sides of an issue, but in a lot of cases (in the case of activism against transgender rights) its a denial that any issue existed in the first place.

But that's my point, you're defining feminist in a particular way that others may disagree with. The term itself has become so plastic that it's not really helpful any more. The same applies to socialist and capitalist, they've become so stretched to accommodate so many issues that they've become pointless
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on August 27, 2021, 05:07:24 PM
Quote from: Autopsy Turvey on August 27, 2021, 04:52:27 PM
What's more, many transwomen don't believe that, often because they are feminists. It's a funny old world!

go back in your bin
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 27, 2021, 05:02:39 PM
Its a bit like saying you can be a Marxist and not think accumulation is a thing, because you think people in low paying jobs should have nicer houses. Its not about desired outcomes. Just vaguely wanting nice things for all women isn't feminism.

And who gets to define feminism? Especially if it change over time?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: imitationleather on August 27, 2021, 05:07:58 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:07:38 PM
And who gets to define feminism?

Glinner
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 27, 2021, 05:10:20 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:06:33 PM
But that's my point, you're defining feminist in a particular way that others may disagree with. The term itself has become so plastic that it's not really helpful any more. The same applies to socialist and capitalist, they've become so stretched to accommodate so many issues that they've become pointless

Its only plastic if you don't define it based on the actions and writings of specific women. I don't think its good faith to say it just means "generally good things for women" because Lean Ins and Resists say it means that, when there is a dense intellectual debate and political practice behind it.

It seems ironic that agreeing with feminism this way means treating the work of women as somehow less intellectually or political valid than of men, so it just means vague good things. We wouldn't talk about male legal scholarship or activism in this way, disability activism being "it just means everyone should be treated well at work" etc. We tend to only do this with the intellectual output of women. In this case, women worked really hard to make feminism not only into a conviction but into an intellectual framework. I gotta respect that, even if I disagree with much because I'm a ridiculous commie.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on August 27, 2021, 05:11:10 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 04:51:49 PM
Yes there are but not in terms of human beliefs. People can hold highly seemingly contradictory beliefs. Just because you hold one particular belief does not mean you hold another. Even the word feminism or socialism are in many ways unhelpful. It's best to focus on specific single points rather than cobbled together idealistic causes than are often construed differently by different people.

the fact that people's views can be inconsistent doesn't change the meaning of clear concepts like feminism and socialism (you can disagree on certain points but not on the abolition of private property and on the accumulation of capital). it is the definition of current centrism to want to get rid of those words, because it would highlight their hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on August 27, 2021, 05:11:42 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:02:31 PM
Ok, I happen to agree with you but can you not see that those are our opinions not facts? Ironically unless you believe in God, there is no absolute truths about morality, just differing views. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? It's just all opinion.

Not really.  To be a Christian, you need to follow the teaching of Christ.  Christ made it quite explicit that people should never ever kill one another - there is no wiggle room.  If you want to have the death penalty or lots of other dodgy shit, you have to accept that your Christianity has to go.

It irritates me that people spend so much time what-if-ing, codifying feminism, turning it into The Girls Big Book of Rules - like a man might do, really.  Women have struggled for generations for equality but society, culture, has not remained static.  What use is some long great specific list of things we want or can do in the face of the endless changing kaleidoscope of human mores?  Bugger-all use.  We don't need to get bogged down in all these little sub-clauses.  Feminism is simple - it's the same for every generation, everywhere where sexism and patriarchy exist - we want equality.  And that means everyone gets it.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kermit the Frog on August 27, 2021, 05:13:23 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:07:38 PM
And who gets to define feminism? Especially if it change over time?

Really wish you'd get to the point, which is that you are sceptical about the degree to which feminism should embrace trans rights and that this is what animates your desire to string out these banal categorisation quibbles, and stop clogging up the thread with this chin stroking relativist piffle. Be more courageous
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:16:25 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on August 27, 2021, 05:11:42 PM
Not really.  To be a Christian, you need to follow the teaching of Christ.  Christ made it quite explicit that people should never ever kill one another - there is no wiggle room.  If you want to have the death penalty or lots of other dodgy shit, you have to accept that your Christianity has to go.

It irritates me that people spend so much time what-if-ing, codifying feminism, turning it into The Girls Big Book of Rules - like a man might do, really.  Women have struggled for generations for equality but society, culture, has not remained static.  What use is some long great specific list of things we want or can do in the face of the endless changing kaleidoscope of human mores?  Bugger-all use.  We don't need to get bogged down in all these little sub-clauses.  Feminism is simple - it's the same for every generation, everywhere where sexism and patriarchy exist - we want equality.  And that means everyone gets it.

But the teaching of Jesus contradict the teaching of God in the bible, so which do they follow?

Is feminism not just egalitarianism then? Why does it need its own separate term?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kermit the Frog on August 27, 2021, 05:17:24 PM
Real AS level Politics shit going on in here. And what even is 'a fact'? Are laws really real?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:18:53 PM
Quote from: chveik on August 27, 2021, 05:11:10 PM
the fact that people's views can be inconsistent doesn't change the meaning of clear concepts like feminism and socialism (you can disagree on certain points but not on the abolition of private property and on the accumulation of capital). it is the definition of current centrism to want to get rid of those words, because it would highlight their hypocrisy.

Right but when those terms have to include new circumstances not addressed in the original charters, what then? Who gets to decide the socialist position on this issues?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 27, 2021, 05:19:36 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:16:25 PM
Why does it need its own separate term?

Start with its concern with legal rights and status and reactions to laws regarding womens property in the mid-19th century.

Suffrage wasn't just about political eglaritarian it was ensuring one particular right in a specific way.

Compare the feminist position on these things to the anarchist one, which was the IdPol v Class Politics of its day for the chattering classes. Its never just been a vague and plastic term, its always meant specific things.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:21:20 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 27, 2021, 05:19:36 PM
Start with its concern with legal rights and status and reactions to laws regarding womens property in the mid-19th century.

Suffrage wasn't just about political eglaritarian it was ensuring one particular right in a specific way.

Compare the feminist position on these things to the anarchist one.

Yes I agree, it's about legal rights for a specific group of people, not about equality in general.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 27, 2021, 05:22:48 PM
I'm saying its concern with legal rights and status makes it a distinct intellectual and political tradition.

Other movements wanted to emancipate women and improve the status of women, feminism distinguished itself from them clearly.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:23:33 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 27, 2021, 05:22:48 PM
I'm saying its concern with legal rights and status makes it a distinct intellectual tradition.

I agree.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kermit the Frog on August 27, 2021, 05:24:49 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:18:53 PM
Right but when those terms have to include new circumstances not addressed in the original charters, what then? Who gets to decide the socialist position on this issues?

What new circumstances specifically? We're so close to something actual
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on August 27, 2021, 05:25:21 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:18:53 PM
Right but when those terms have to include new circumstances not addressed in the original charters, what then? Who gets to decide the socialist position on this issues?

our world hasn't changed in a such a way that it would make those terms meaningless. i wish you'd go straight to the point
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on August 27, 2021, 05:27:11 PM
Fundamentally I don't think you can be a good socialist without supporting the liberty of other humans; this comes with a caveat that as a good socialist you should be primarily concerned with the liberty of other humans in a collective sense (social-ism); those that do not see other humans as their equals in humanity do not come under this collective agreement as they are not acting socially.

As I've said before I'm not really interested in feminists that are not Marxist or socialist feminists because it rapidly becomes contradictory with any application to it (trans women being a clear example); you'll notice most TERFs are nearly always neither.

Socialism beyond it's economic demands isn't about reductive olympics; for all intents and purposes your race, gender, sex or even your financial background (though what believe about it does) doesn't comes into it - but people for some reason seem to be keen to forget this and claim this is purely a mindset that is looking to ignore vulnerable groups.

Glad to see some people in their round about way accepting this.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Lemming on August 27, 2021, 05:28:37 PM
Really reluctant to get involved, but is it controversial to state that there specific challenges and oppressions faced by people who are female, or AFAB if you prefer? To give some extra perspective here, I'm thinking about this because a friend I have on Discord is a transgender man who still identifies himself as a feminist and discusses being a transgender man as being a "female experience" (his words). Maybe an uncommon view, I don't know. Seems ideologically consistent to me.

Moving away from that discussion, I do think it's bizarre how feminism is typically portrayed as/expected to be "a movement for everyone". I can't think of any other social movement that has had this happen. Nobody says gay rights activism is a "movement for everyone", even if a world without homophobia would benefit a lot of straight people as a side effect. Nobody says BLM is a movement for everyone, even if a world without racial oppression massively benefits humanity as a whole. It does feel like a lot of modern-day feminism I see online is concerned with comforting and coddling the feelings of (cisgender) men and carefully dancing around the issues of patriarchal violence/oppression. Back during the big cultural moment about street harassment and violence we had earlier this year, it felt like every time you turned around, five people appeared out of nowhere to say "but men face violence too!". I'm in one of the demographics of men more likely to face violence (I'm a MTF crossdresser, or whatever you want to call it), and I have occasionally gotten shit for it out in public, and even to me it just felt like people were trying to deflect from a real feminist issue by making it about men.

As I say though, I'm a man, so my opinion is worth less than shit on this. Not saying that in a dramatic self-flagellating way, I just honestly think men commenting on feminism is weird. Same as when white people eagerly weigh in on what they think BLM ought to be.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on August 27, 2021, 05:30:56 PM
Quote from: Lemming on August 27, 2021, 05:28:37 PM
Moving away from that discussion, I do think it's bizarre how feminism is typically portrayed as/expected to be "a movement for everyone". I can't think of any other social movement that has had this happen.

There has been it's called Marxism, Socialism and Humanism.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 27, 2021, 05:32:19 PM
All politics are universal by definition, its always a matter of going beyond personal experience and opinion *pulls crank*
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on August 27, 2021, 05:34:29 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:16:25 PM
But the teaching of Jesus contradict the teaching of God in the bible, so which do they follow?

Is feminism not just egalitarianism then? Why does it need its own separate term?

If you've read the bible then you'll know that Jesus addressed your first question in Matthew 5:17 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17#:~:text=In%20the%20King%20James%20Version,to%20destroy%2C%20but%20to%20fulfil.&text=prophets.,-I%20didn't), he makes it clear that the old law (in the Old Testament) is subject to the new law (New Testament).

Feminism may not need a specific name, sexism or racism, ageism, none of them.  We could just work with not being cunts.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:37:24 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on August 27, 2021, 05:34:29 PM
If you've read the bible then you'll know that Jesus addressed your first question in Matthew 5:17 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17#:~:text=In%20the%20King%20James%20Version,to%20destroy%2C%20but%20to%20fulfil.&text=prophets.,-I%20didn't), he makes it clear that the old law (in the Old Testament) is subject to the new law (New Testament).

Feminism may not need a specific name, sexism or racism, ageism, none of them.  We could just work with not being cunts.

On that we absolutely agree.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kermit the Frog on August 27, 2021, 05:41:40 PM
Indeed! We should all work on developing the courage not to be dissembling, cowardly cunts. A better world would surely follow.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:41:57 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on August 27, 2021, 05:30:56 PM
There has been it's called Marxism, Socialism and Humanism.

Hmm, does Marx really show concern for the upper class? Surely at heart it's about improving the lives of the workers which must come at the expense of the ruling class?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on August 27, 2021, 05:44:35 PM
Quote from: Kermit the Frog on August 27, 2021, 05:41:40 PM
Indeed! We should all work on developing the courage not to be dissembling, cowardly cunts. A better world would surely follow.

misdirected courage isn't that helpful. you need to have a clear and rational idea of what you're going to do with it
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on August 27, 2021, 05:48:53 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 05:41:57 PM
Hmm, does Marx really show concern for the upper class? Surely at heart it's about improving the lives of the workers which must come at the expense of the ruling class?

Marx was married to an aristocrat.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kermit the Frog on August 27, 2021, 05:52:16 PM
Quote from: chveik on August 27, 2021, 05:44:35 PM
misdirected courage isn't that helpful. you need to have a clear and rational idea of what you're going to do with it

In these times we seem to be afflicted with a scarcity of either
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Ferris on August 27, 2021, 06:17:32 PM
Got a leaflet from these lads through the door

https://centristpartycanada.ca/

Thought about considering them but that would probably mean I'd have to take a position on something so I've decided against it.

Edit: they're pro increased oil and gas drilling, limiting immigration, and being "tough on crime".
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on August 28, 2021, 01:45:12 PM
What I think jamiefairlie is saying that there are significant number of people with voices in the media who claim to be feminists but whose only objective is the neoliberal solution of a gender balanced ruling class. Equality will then trickle down but if it doesn't, they'll be alright.

We know that that belief will not deliver equality women or anyone else but it is out there masquerading as feminism and needs to be challenged. It's not sufficient for us to pleased with ourselves for recognising it's a load of bollocks.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on August 28, 2021, 01:46:14 PM
Quote from: imitationleather on August 27, 2021, 03:37:24 PM
Occasionally I've got into arguments with people who state a simple falsehood such as "You cannot be a socialist if you are racist or homophobic" as though it's a cast iron common sense truth but I always quickly realise debating with these people is way more trouble than it's worth and duck out.

Given my post above, I am one of those people. Sorry, mate!
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on August 28, 2021, 01:55:20 PM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 27, 2021, 04:47:00 PM
I doubt that many of the suffragette leaders weren't Tories.

Christabel and Adela Pankhurst had some views that would be extremely unpalatable to modern progressive leftists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christabel_Pankhurst

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adela_Pankhurst

Which contradicts my previous post. I'd say 'You can't white feather men while claiming to be a feminist.' Well, you clearly can.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on August 28, 2021, 01:57:24 PM
Quote from: imitationleather on August 27, 2021, 03:37:24 PM
Occasionally I've got into arguments with people who state a simple falsehood such as "You cannot be a socialist if you are racist or homophobic" as though it's a cast iron common sense truth but I always quickly realise debating with these people is way more trouble than it's worth and duck out.

Heheh, amusing thought, you can say you're a socialist but I'm afraid I'm a RandHES.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on August 28, 2021, 01:59:29 PM
Isn't the last page or so a really convoluted circular argument resting around the following two sentences?
'it's possible on some level for people to believe they are promoting feminist ideals while also gatekeeping who they believe to be women'
'no true feminist...'

seems like these two things can be true at the same time.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on August 28, 2021, 02:12:27 PM
People can believe anything whilst saying anything.  It doesn't mean they're correct in the sense that facts and logic are relevant to the transference of belief or opinion into reality.

I know I've already said this but I think the bizarre urge to codify, reduce and confine a thing, in this case, feminism, to a bunch of clauses[nb]possibly applicable to "now" but often irrelevant to either the past or future[/nb] is foolish, wrong-headed, perhaps vexatious[nb]intentionally or unintentionally, consciously or unconsiously[/nb]. 
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on August 28, 2021, 02:24:25 PM
I have a half-formed idea that a lot of the contradictions in people's self-declared political labels can be understood better by their willingness to appeal to nature in their political arguments.

So, for example, so-called 'centrists' will not seek to replace neoliberal capitalism - the market is a force of nature and therefore its negative effects can only be mitigated, like when there's a hurricane. So, they feel entitled to believe they are politically on the left for wanting the best for people in bad circumstances but they act to maintain the status quo.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 28, 2021, 02:36:03 PM
Quote from: Johnny Yesno on August 28, 2021, 01:45:12 PM
What I think jamiefairlie is saying that there are significant number of people with voices in the media who claim to be feminists but whose only objective is the neoliberal solution of a gender balanced ruling class. Equality will then trickle down but if it doesn't, they'll be alright.

We know that that belief will not deliver equality women or anyone else but it is out there masquerading as feminism and needs to be challenged. It's not sufficient for us to pleased with ourselves for recognising it's a load of bollocks.

The other side of this that if you use "feminism" to mean everything where someone wants political and social goods for women, you're glossing over a lot of women weren't feminists but still worked towards emanicaption or libertarian - lesbian seperatists who don't consider "women" to be a valid political category, womanists who think feminism was irredeemably corrupted by slavery and colonialism, Marxists who think feminism is purposefully class-blind, anarchists who object to the focus on legal status, psychoanalysts who think feminism can't account for desire... its quite a list, and pretty easy to name someone truly brilliant for each item on it.

I might be corny to say that believing every creed concerned with improving the status of women should be called "feminism" = anglophone liberal hegemony, because feminism is the name liberals give to wimmin issuez in general, but thats kind of the case at a boring cut and dry level. Its only really liberal intersectionality that has the "my way or the high way" attitude to other forms of left/liberal/anarchist thinking.

CaB seems pretty good on these issues on the whole, lefties heading into middle age tend to be, but you don't have to look far for pop culture discussions online where you'll get things like liberal men confidently arguing that even though Simon DeBeauvoir (or whoever) said she wasn't a feminist she actually was, ignoring what the women in question actual said and did so they can dunk on other men for being "dudebros" and go away feeling like they're The Good Guys while having paid zero attention to anything they didn't already believe.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on August 28, 2021, 02:54:33 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 28, 2021, 02:36:03 PM
I might be corny to say that believing every creed concerned with improving the status of women should be called "feminism" = anglophone liberal hegemony, because feminism is the name liberals give to wimmin issuez in general, but thats kind of the case at a boring cut and dry level. Its only really liberal intersectionality that has the "my way or the high way" attitude to other forms of left/liberal/anarchist thinking.

Yes, a lot of this comes down to functionality and practicality. Tempting though it is to think a tory feminist isn't a feminist, I suppose it's more useful to consider how the political flavours influence each other and how much I ultimately have in common with them as a result.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 28, 2021, 03:04:32 PM
I think in the UK I think it had a lot to do with making it a central pillar of 3rd way politics, which contained the notion that social issues like sex and gender were somehow 'pre political' which is useful to everyone who wanted to move away from redistributive or economically eglatarian politics. Which in turn solidifies the idea you can identify with a specific political philosophy while sharing 0% of its convictions, because you liked a movie or pop song.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kankurette on August 28, 2021, 03:18:33 PM
Quote from: Lemming on August 27, 2021, 05:28:37 PM
Really reluctant to get involved, but is it controversial to state that there specific challenges and oppressions faced by people who are female, or AFAB if you prefer? To give some extra perspective here, I'm thinking about this because a friend I have on Discord is a transgender man who still identifies himself as a feminist and discusses being a transgender man as being a "female experience" (his words). Maybe an uncommon view, I don't know. Seems ideologically consistent to me.

Moving away from that discussion, I do think it's bizarre how feminism is typically portrayed as/expected to be "a movement for everyone". I can't think of any other social movement that has had this happen. Nobody says gay rights activism is a "movement for everyone", even if a world without homophobia would benefit a lot of straight people as a side effect. Nobody says BLM is a movement for everyone, even if a world without racial oppression massively benefits humanity as a whole. It does feel like a lot of modern-day feminism I see online is concerned with comforting and coddling the feelings of (cisgender) men and carefully dancing around the issues of patriarchal violence/oppression. Back during the big cultural moment about street harassment and violence we had earlier this year, it felt like every time you turned around, five people appeared out of nowhere to say "but men face violence too!". I'm in one of the demographics of men more likely to face violence (I'm a MTF crossdresser, or whatever you want to call it), and I have occasionally gotten shit for it out in public, and even to me it just felt like people were trying to deflect from a real feminist issue by making it about men.

As I say though, I'm a man, so my opinion is worth less than shit on this. Not saying that in a dramatic self-flagellating way, I just honestly think men commenting on feminism is weird. Same as when white people eagerly weigh in on what they think BLM ought to be.
Same reason why I don't weigh in on Marxist discussions. I'm middle-class. I'm the bad guy here.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 28, 2021, 03:25:11 PM
There's no good guy/bad guy based on class perspective in Marxism.

It's not what class you are, its whose class interests you'll stand for. Comrades are comrades.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on August 28, 2021, 03:41:45 PM
Quote from: Johnny Yesno on August 28, 2021, 02:54:33 PM
Yes, a lot of this comes down to functionality and practicality. Tempting though it is to think a tory feminist isn't a feminist, I suppose it's more useful to consider how the political flavours influence each other and how much I ultimately have in common with them as a result.

But isn't that what "Centrism" is?  The creeping acceptance of "wrong" because we're all in a "big tent", all part of the kaleidoscope of cosmic Venn? 

I think these perfectly reasonable-sounding thoughts may be part of what leads us to get into bed with utter shitbags and wake up where we are, guided by rule-minders and makers instead of our moral compasses.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 28, 2021, 03:56:54 PM
I think you could describe modern centrism as having progressive concerns but sharing the hard right idea that those concerns aren't political, they're cultural/social/community issues so in order to achieve what you want you need to roadblock political change and effect social and cultural changes. The mantra of a centrist is "its not political!"

This is where the moral coward of centrism really comes in. You get something like gay marriage or minimum wage, that was clearly achieved through political means and you re-contextualise it as just something that happen because of the inevitable progress of society, and then emotionally blackmail people who want further positive changes that they'll undo what's already been accomplished if they want Magic Granddad to ban the bomb or whatever.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on August 28, 2021, 04:44:39 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 28, 2021, 03:04:32 PM
I think in the UK I think it had a lot to do with making it a central pillar of 3rd way politics, which contained the notion that social issues like sex and gender were somehow 'pre political' which is useful to everyone who wanted to move away from redistributive or economically eglatarian politics. Which in turn solidifies the idea you can identify with a specific political philosophy while sharing 0% of its convictions, because you liked a movie or pop song.

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 28, 2021, 03:25:11 PM
There's no good guy/bad guy based on class perspective in Marxism.

It's not what class you are, its whose class interests you'll stand for. Comrades are comrades.

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 28, 2021, 03:56:54 PM
I think you could describe modern centrism as having progressive concerns but sharing the hard right idea that those concerns aren't political, they're cultural/social/community issues so in order to achieve what you want you need to roadblock political change and effect social and cultural changes. The mantra of a centrist is "its not political!"

This is where the moral coward of centrism really comes in. You get something like gay marriage or minimum wage, that was clearly achieved through political means and you re-contextualise it as just something that happen because of the inevitable progress of society, and then emotionally blackmail people who want further positive changes that they'll undo what's already been accomplished if they want Magic Granddad to ban the bomb or whatever.

Abso-fucking-lutely to all of this.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on August 28, 2021, 05:08:41 PM
https://kotaku.com/epic-disables-disrespectful-fortnite-emotes-in-the-mart-1847575018

Centrism
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: MikeP on August 29, 2021, 02:06:31 AM
Biggest problem with humanity is its apparent need to join some kind of ism. That is the cause of most social divisiveness in the world today. People with homosexual tendencies align with the 'gay' label, various racial sub-groups (in the true meaning of the term) align themselves with others of their ilk in their own private tribes. Then there's the ones who aren't sure which label they belong to and form halfway houses. All of these things cause irritation in the big bad world. A sort of wistful gang membership.
Personally I don't register what people's allignment is until it causes problems - like New Labour bombing Iraq, or Johnny foreigner trying to stab me in London while presumably quoting from the Koran (my arabic is seriously rusty), or extinction rebellion making me miss my train.
I'm not sure how to make a better world, but I am sure that poiticians, bigots and minority protests/stabbings are not the answer.
In fairness, the best societies for the great unwashed are probably dictatorships. Yes, I know their downsides. But it seems to be working currently in Scotland.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: gerostock on August 29, 2021, 04:17:35 AM
Lenin was socially conservative. He held traditional views on sex, art, marriage etc.

Modern British society is neither progressive nor conservative, it's permissive. Pretty much everyone agrees that the government shouldn't be in the business of imposing cultural values.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on August 29, 2021, 09:05:50 AM
Quote from: MikeP on August 29, 2021, 02:06:31 AM
Biggest problem with humanity is its apparent need to join some kind of ism.

Yes, humanity would be better off staying away from jism.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Goldentony on August 29, 2021, 09:11:30 AM
my mate dave killed a rat once with a golf club but it was a fuck off rat and a really shit quality type of joke club you used to playing golf in the park where youd twat a ball and whoever got furthest won, anyway when it happened he went

SHIT, LAD, GANGSTER HOMICIDE

which was fair enough but I asked him why it had to happen and he said

WE ALL HAVE ISM
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Shoulders?-Stomach! on August 29, 2021, 09:14:24 AM
Quote from: MikePJohnny foreigner trying to stab me in London while presumably quoting from the Koran

Yeah jeez all the damn time, still, I have got lucky so far as they don't have a knife so they are just trying to stab me with the Koran while also reading it at the same time.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on August 29, 2021, 09:24:43 AM
Quote from: MikeP on August 29, 2021, 02:06:31 AM
Johnny foreigner trying to stab me in London while presumably quoting from the Koran (my arabic is seriously rusty)

In future, maybe check what text you're quoting instead of presuming.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: JaDanketies on August 29, 2021, 09:48:46 AM
The BNP's economic views are more socialisty than the average (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party#Economic_policy)
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: MikeP on September 02, 2021, 11:44:03 PM
Quote from: Johnny Yesno on August 29, 2021, 09:24:43 AM
In future, maybe check what text you're quoting instead of presuming.

So I should tell him to hang fire on the attack while we establish which tome is being quoted? Ignoring advice like that is one of the reasons I'm still alive. In the heat of the moment it is tricky to perform simultaneous translation from arabic then identify its origin.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 03, 2021, 12:08:53 AM
Must we really have this?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: MikeP on September 03, 2021, 12:23:29 AM
Quote from: Buelligan on September 03, 2021, 12:08:53 AM
Must we really have this?
Probably not, but it depends which 'we' we belong to.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 03, 2021, 09:41:23 AM
Humans. 
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Jockice on September 03, 2021, 09:56:09 AM
I'll just say here that one bloke on my politics degree course claimed to be a Marxist and made some very points during discussions (he got a first) but in private conversation (ie, when there were no black or Asian students around) he was horribly racist. Like the kid I knew as a teenager who was a massive Jam fan but also a Tory I can't see how he could combine the two things. But that's just me.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Paul Calf on September 03, 2021, 10:49:52 AM
Quote from: Jockice on September 03, 2021, 09:56:09 AM
Like the kid I knew as a teenager who was a massive Jam fan but also a Tory...

David Cameron?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Jockice on September 03, 2021, 10:58:53 AM
Quote from: Paul Calf on September 03, 2021, 10:49:52 AM
David Cameron?

Nope. But he does share a surname with a well-known former Conservative MP. Don't know if they were related. Don't care either. He was a tosser.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 03, 2021, 11:02:16 AM
Quote from: Jockice on September 03, 2021, 09:56:09 AM
I'll just say here that one bloke on my politics degree course claimed to be a Marxist and made some very points during discussions (he got a first) but in private conversation (ie, when there were no black or Asian students around) he was horribly racist. Like the kid I knew as a teenager who was a massive Jam fan but also a Tory I can't see how he could combine the two things. But that's just me.

I think we've spoken about this lad before but I've highlighted what is important.  The rightwing claim that Marxists are the same as hitler and want to usher in feminism and destroy the West and it's traditional christian values.  Meanwhile centrists call Marxists violent nationalists and sleeper cell authoritarians and leftwing identity politics driven individuals call Marxists racist, anti-feminists who use socialism as a code for lets only help the whiteys.

To be a Marxist has historically been to invoke the role of the misrepresented, abused, oppressed and murdered (it's completely lost on all these groups that it was immigrant, jewish, black, female and 'white-male' Marxists that have been murdered over the centuries for the crime of trying to progress a fairer society for the majority).  I mean we've just allowed the re-writing of Niermollers famous poem "first they came for the socialists" because it is just convenient for each of these groups in their own ways to see Marxists as somekind of negative force in the world.

Largely this down to these groups self-interest and a reliance on people never bothering to read anything much about what someone like Marx (or the lots of people before him) said; or even understand simple things like.

Marx = a person.
Marxism = a method of analysis.
Socialism = an economic model.
Communism = a form (or not as the case maybe) of government.

It's all pretty fucked and depressingly being further fucked not just by the usual right-wingers that have a vested interest in lying about Marxists.  The only solution I can think of here is that we try and formulate a way in which to identify individuals that are not helpful to leftwing causes and manage them (no not gulag them but address their concerns or highlight how destructive their behaviour is to causes people claim to want to pursue).
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Jockice on September 03, 2021, 11:16:29 AM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 03, 2021, 11:02:16 AM
I think we've spoken about this lad before but I've highlighted what is important.  The rightwing claim that Marxists are the same as hitler and want to feminism and destroy the West and it's traditional christian values.  Meanwhile centrists call Marxists violent nationalists and sleeper cell authoritarian and leftwing identity politics driven individuals call Marxists racist, anti-feminists who use socialism as a code for lets only help the whiteys.

To be a Marxist has historically been to in role of the misrepresented, abused, oppressed and murdered (it's completely lost on all these groups that it was immigrant, jewish, black, female and 'white-male' Marxists that have been murdered over the centuries for the crime of trying a progress a fairer society for the majority).  I mean we've just allowed the re-writing of Niermollers famous poem "first they came for the socialists" because it is just convenient for each of these groups in their own ways to see Marxists as somekind of negative force in the world.

Largely this down to these groups self-interest and a reliance on people never bothering to read anything much about what someone like Marx (or the lots of people before him) said; or even understand simple things like.

Marx = a person.
Marxism = a method of analysis.
Socialism = an economic model.
Communism = a form (or not as the case maybe) of government.

It's all pretty fucked and depressingly begin fucked not just by the usual right-wingers that have a vested interest in lying about Marxists.  The only solution I can think of here is that we try and formulate a way in which to identify individuals that are not helpful to leftwing causes and manage them (no not gulag them but address their concerns or highlight how destructive their behaviour is to causes people claim to want to pursue).

We have yeah, that's why I put the 'claimed to be' prefix this time. He was a tosser too. And looked like Shaun Ryder at his very worst. Glad I've never seen him since the course ended.I wouldn't call him a lad though. It was a lifelong learning degree and he was well into his 30s at the time. Old enough to have known better anyway.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on September 03, 2021, 07:47:37 PM
Quote from: MikeP on September 02, 2021, 11:44:03 PM
So I should tell him to hang fire on the attack while we establish which tome is being quoted? Ignoring advice like that is one of the reasons I'm still alive. In the heat of the moment it is tricky to perform simultaneous translation from arabic then identify its origin.

Some people don't deserve jokes.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on September 03, 2021, 10:29:16 PM

Marx = a person.
Marxism = a method of analysis.
Socialism = an economic model.
Communism = a form (or not as the case maybe) of government.

Excellent summary. I wish eedjits banging on about socialism without mentioning the economic structure would get this.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: canadagoose on September 03, 2021, 10:51:10 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 03, 2021, 11:02:16 AM
I think we've spoken about this lad before but I've highlighted what is important.  The rightwing claim that Marxists are the same as hitler and want to usher in feminism and destroy the West and it's traditional christian values.  Meanwhile centrists call Marxists violent nationalists and sleeper cell authoritarians and leftwing identity politics driven individuals call Marxists racist, anti-feminists who use socialism as a code for lets only help the whiteys.

To be a Marxist has historically been to invoke the role of the misrepresented, abused, oppressed and murdered (it's completely lost on all these groups that it was immigrant, jewish, black, female and 'white-male' Marxists that have been murdered over the centuries for the crime of trying to progress a fairer society for the majority).  I mean we've just allowed the re-writing of Niermollers famous poem "first they came for the socialists" because it is just convenient for each of these groups in their own ways to see Marxists as somekind of negative force in the world.

Largely this down to these groups self-interest and a reliance on people never bothering to read anything much about what someone like Marx (or the lots of people before him) said; or even understand simple things like.

Marx = a person.
Marxism = a method of analysis.
Socialism = an economic model.
Communism = a form (or not as the case maybe) of government.

It's all pretty fucked and depressingly being further fucked not just by the usual right-wingers that have a vested interest in lying about Marxists.  The only solution I can think of here is that we try and formulate a way in which to identify individuals that are not helpful to leftwing causes and manage them (no not gulag them but address their concerns or highlight how destructive their behaviour is to causes people claim to want to pursue).
I don't know how you've not come across loads of people who claim to be "Marxists" and "socialists" but hate minorities of various sorts. They are everywhere and keep getting away with it "because they're the good guys on everything else". I'm personally sick of them.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: servese43 on September 04, 2021, 09:21:00 AM
Bob Katter is another example of someone who's right-wing socially and left-wing fiscally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Katter#Political_views
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 11:21:58 AM
Quote from: canadagoose on September 03, 2021, 10:51:10 PM
I don't know how you've not come across loads of people who claim to be "Marxists" and "socialists" but hate minorities of various sorts. They are everywhere and keep getting away with it "because they're the good guys on everything else". I'm personally sick of them.

I don't doubt they exist but I can't think of a single person I've met that would claim to be a Marxist and hate minorities.  If I did meet such a person then I would love to have a chat with them about how they think Marxism informs their hatred of minorities.

It's really easy to to say I met someone with X political views and they were racist but what do think is informing that; Marxism? Socialism? Probably the method of analysis and economic theory that has involved itself in and of the lives of minorities more than any other.

This is the real problem; the complete disinterest in what these things are about on all fronts; if you claim to Marxist but are deleting the incredible world changing history of black Marxism of Marxist feminism then I think your Marxist credentials are very much in question.

What you appear to be working on is, like Jockice, people that are primarily cunts that claim to be Marxists or Socialists, still I've not seen many; that Paul Embry keeps being referenced as if he is a Marxist when he just, like fascists, Farage and other plonkers promotes some (and it is only some) aspects of socialism because of it's a collective theory.  Paul Embry is just a bloke with a gob and is not representative of Marxism or Socialism in anyway; I really don't know who these phantom Marxist-racists are other than this plonker that you seem to think are out there.  Blue Labour isn't Marxist either it's probably more close to some kind of civic nationalism than anything else.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 11:35:26 AM
I don't think you can understand Marxism without understand that because its offering up a theoretical model or critique rather than a philosophy of everything it 100% has to be focused upon particular struggles. While it describes a universal history which has a single subject, the revolutionary proletariat, its view of human life always begins with a particular conflict or contradiction. Both the diagnosis and the call to action begins there.

Both vulgar marxists and anti-marxists have held to the view that Marxism talks about class conflict as coming from everywhere at once, which is wrong. This is how Marxism is taught institutionally - Marx wrote about one universal global conflict between workers and capitalists, but now we're smart liberals who understand that there are many oppressions... its just wrong. Whether you like the idea of a single global conflict or not.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 11:41:35 AM
Quote from: servese43 on September 04, 2021, 09:21:00 AM
Bob Katter is another example of someone who's right-wing socially and left-wing fiscally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Katter#Political_views

You do realise this is just the same drivel that right-wingers throw out against lefties arguing that hitler was a "socialist".  I'm genuinely interested in how people cannot see this as the same rubbish.

Even the bit in that wiki page after this chaps alleged leftism (opposing privatisation and deregulation) says "citation needed"; presuming it is true; there is this quite important thing about Marxism and Socialism in that it has to be "international" hence why you have the "international movements" the reason why it became international is because to attend to its essentially humanist foundations it does not see nationality as a positive segregating force in the world.

Hence way national socialism is something very different and in opposition to Marxism despite it using in part the economic model.

I thought we all knew this.

Ash Sarkar is a Marxist, Jeremy Corbyn is a Socialist, The Black Panthers were Marxist and so was Martin Luther King, Ana Mendieta was a feminist-cuban-Marxist, Franz Fanon was a Marxist, There is literally thousands and thousands of dead Jewish people that were minorites murdered for being Marxists, the communist party of Britain was founded by a Marxist-feminist (Dora Monteflore).  There are literally Marxist groups in the Middle East being murdered right now for trying to fight against nationalist regimes.....but for some reason Paul Embry is the embodiment of Socialism.

Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 11:43:54 AM
I don't want to be mean or hurt any feelings and I'm not directing this at any particular person but, IMO, Marxism is something that really does belong to the people.  Individuals who want to twirl their erudition to exclude others, gatekeep and complicate a thing like fucking Marxism should think on't.  It's a pure and natural thing, as obvious as breathing.  No fucking offence.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 11:45:03 AM
Quote from: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 11:43:54 AM
t's a pure and natural thing, as obvious as breathing. 

Its not a fucking religion.

The idea that labour is a worthwhile subject for intellectual consideration is something too hard fought for to give up. Its too much of a mammoth achievement of thought to just call 'obvious'

Its good that dialectical thought is difficult because its subject matter deserves it. Saying people should just know things from direct experience and don't need thought or learning is degrading of working or disenfranchised people and the opposite of the Marxist spirit, which is just as much about emancipation of the intellectual world as it is about factories. The most involved, radical and effective marxists of the 20th century were intellectuals for a reason.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 11:52:04 AM
Quote from: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 11:43:54 AM
I don't want to be mean or hurt any feelings and I'm not directing this at any particular person but, IMO, Marxism is something that really does belong to the people.  Individuals who want to twirl their erudition to exclude others, gatekeep and complicate a thing like fucking Marxism should think on't.  It's a pure and natural thing, as obvious as breathing.  No fucking offence.

I have lot of sympathy for this notion but goodness and kindness does not just emerge from telling people "it's like breathing".  It isn't complicated though and it is unnecessary and definitely counterproductive to be overly academic about things as it reduces access.  This however needs to be pitched against the amount of people projecting stuff onto these movements that don't actually understand them.

That isn't "gatekeeping" though, that is much more what goes on in your Labour misery threads.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 11:53:29 AM
If something makes huge, sweeping claims about the world and tells people to act and think in ways radically different to how they usually act and think... probably good if its very complicated and difficult to learn, because at that point justification is going to be a wee bit more important than intuition.

People are inspired by Marx, and amused by the literary pretentions of his work. If he didn't have that and was just Hegel II: Correct Hegel people wouldn't be getting hyped generation over generation. Seeing someone treat issues like labour and alienation with the seriousness they deserve still feels like someone opening a window a century and a half later. If it was just "you already know this basically, lived experience and that. i'm just giving you a face to put on the flag" what would be the point
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 12:00:29 PM
You can get comics on it all now if you don't want to spend 10 weeks reading Das Kapital
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/203 (https://existentialcomics.com/comic/203)

(https://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/communistManifesto1.png)
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 12:10:34 PM
If that comic was accurate Karl when the door was knocked Karl would've gone "christ, the balliff!" and hid under the table while getting his wife to open to door
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 12:15:38 PM
Hehe that is quite funny that existential comics site.

There is an actual graphic novel of the communist manifesto though if people are interested; created by our very own Martin Rowson http://www.multiversitycomics.com/reviews/the-communist-manifesto/ (http://www.multiversitycomics.com/reviews/the-communist-manifesto/)
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 12:23:50 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 11:45:03 AM
Its not a fucking religion.

The idea that labour is a worthwhile subject for intellectual consideration is something too hard fought for to give up. Its too much of a mammoth achievement of thought to just call 'obvious'

Its good that dialectical thought is difficult because its subject matter deserves it. Saying people should just know things from direct experience and don't need thought or learning is degrading of working or disenfranchised people and the opposite of the Marxist spirit, which is just as much about emancipation of the intellectual world as it is about factories. The most involved, radical and effective marxists of the 20th century were intellectuals for a reason.

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 11:52:04 AM
I have lot of sympathy for this notion but goodness and kindness does not just emerge from telling people "it's like breathing".  It isn't complicated though and it is unnecessary and definitely counterproductive to be overly academic about things as it reduces access.  This however needs to be pitched against the amount of people projecting stuff onto these movements that don't actually understand them.

That isn't "gatekeeping" though, that is much more what goes on in your Labour misery threads.

As I said, no fucking offence intended.  I think you should both maybe, read what I wrote again, in the context of the conversation in this thread.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 11:45:03 AM
Its not a fucking religion.

The idea that labour is a worthwhile subject for intellectual consideration is something too hard fought for to give up. Its too much of a mammoth achievement of thought to just call 'obvious'

Its good that dialectical thought is difficult because its subject matter deserves it. Saying people should just know things from direct experience and don't need thought or learning is degrading of working or disenfranchised people and the opposite of the Marxist spirit, which is just as much about emancipation of the intellectual world as it is about factories. The most involved, radical and effective marxists of the 20th century were intellectuals for a reason.

Sorry, I have to say something more.  A general observation, not specifically about this thread - there's nothing wrong with a good old Marxist intellectual group wank but not if it puts off or excludes people.  Keep it for those who enjoy it. 

Also, there may be more than one reason why the most involved, radical and effective marxists of the 20th century were intellectuals, have a think about it.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 12:34:12 PM
No need to read anything you've written twice thanks. Oh sorry I mean "no fucking offence intended".

Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 12:42:15 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 12:32:41 PM
Sorry, I have to say something more.  A general observation, not specifically about this thread - there's nothing wrong with a good old Marxist intellectual group wank but not if it puts off or excludes people.  Keep it for those who enjoy it. 

Honestly treating stuff as mystical knowledge you're supposed to already know is going to put more people off than the idea that talking about complex issues is difficult?

Quote
Also, there may be more than one reason why the most involved, radical and effective marxists of the 20th century were intellectuals, have a think about it.

A good reason why liberal governments took a specifically anti-intellectual tack during the cold war was that intellectuals were extremely effective at reaching factory workers, mobilizing immigrant communities, and leading struggles against colonialism. Vastly more so than present day 'community organising' could ever be. Turns out inspiring people and opening them to new ideas, new toolkits and concepts and treating them with dignity as your equals is more effective outreach than Lol Humans Suck misanthropy.

What figure has been more slandered than the out of touch 'marxist intellectual'?

Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 12:48:28 PM
I mean its a well worn joke in leftist circles but if you're leftist and you talk to different groups, working class and marginalised people want to talk about art and philosophy, they want to get to grips with the debates and ideas they rightly feel shut out from, but bourgie solipsists love their lived experiences and hate "book worship"

Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 12:53:51 PM
Well, I work as a cleaner, so I wouldn't know about that.

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 12:42:15 PM
Honestly treating stuff as mystical knowledge you're supposed to already know is going to put more people off than the idea that talking about complex issues is difficult?

As I said, try reading what I wrote again.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 04, 2021, 12:55:58 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 12:42:15 PM
What figure has been more slandered than the out of touch 'marxist intellectual'?

your mum
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 12:57:53 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 12:53:51 PM
Well, I work as a cleaner, and own my own home, in France, because I decided that I wanted to live in a beautiful picturesque town in the middle of nowhere, like a lot of rich people do.

FTFY

And I should add all power to you for it, but it's far cry away from living on a sink estate and having to work as a cleaner to pay your extortionate rent whilst looking after any kids you might have.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 04, 2021, 01:02:43 PM
i don't think introducing some kind of hierarchy between working class people is the way to go.

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 11:45:03 AM
The most involved, radical and effective marxists of the 20th century were intellectuals for a reason.

a statement so general it's basically meaningless. the less effective were intellectuals too
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 01:02:47 PM
Let's not have an authenticity debate.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 01:05:57 PM
Quote from: chveik on September 04, 2021, 01:02:43 PM
a statement too general it's basically meaningless. the less effective were intellectuals too

Who?

The most effective Marxist movements of the 20th century were characterised by coalitions between intellectuals and workers. So governments and capital put in specific effort and resources to breaking exactly that point of contact and the exchange ideas/resource it represented, slandering those involved and demonising it in favour of celebrating the 'grassroots' or whatever standard of authenticity.

Its hardly an abstraction. You only have to compare radical literature from marxists versus the same from institutions and mainstream political parties to see exactly what I mean.

We didn't just get the idea of out of touch Marxist intellectuals with their books telling authentic real people what to think out of nowhere, or is that yet another one of those things everyone is supposed to already know?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 01:12:27 PM
Quote from: chveik on September 04, 2021, 01:02:43 PM
the less effective were intellectuals too

It's both isn't it and specifically we need working class representation in the machinery that controls our lives; this means working class people becoming intellectuals and there are considerable sacrifices that might have to made in the pursuit of this.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 04, 2021, 01:20:48 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 01:05:57 PM
Who?

pol pot and the like

QuoteThe most effective Marxist movements of the 20th century were characterised by coalitions between intellectuals and workers. So governments and capital put in specific effort and resources to breaking exactly that point of contact and the exchange ideas/resource it represented, slandering those involved and demonising it in favour of celebrating the 'grassroots' or whatever standard of authenticity.

We didn't just get the idea of out of touch Marxist intellectuals with their books telling authentic real people what to think out of nowhere, or is that yet another one of those things everyone is supposed to already know?

that's not the point, it's just that it's obvious that prominent marxist leaders would have had access to superior education at that time. i don't quite see why you need to sneer at grassroot stuff, you can organize a strike without coalescing with the local intellectual. i would say capital is more interested in destroying communist movements themselves than the encounter between workers and intellectuals (i can recognize that phenomenon but i think you're making too much of it). i mean working class people can read, they don't necessarily need sartre on a bucket talking to them to organize. i've heard your argument hundreds of times, maybe i'm just getting bored by it
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 01:22:55 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 12:32:41 PM
Also, there may be more than one reason why the most involved, radical and effective marxists of the 20th century were intellectuals, have a think about it.

As you seem reluctant to think about this seriously, I invite you to consider the number of illiterate involved, radical and effective marxists of the 20th century that are highly regarded.  Think about the 20th century, think about how people achieved recognition in any sphere, even Marxism.  Consider the gender, race and so on of these super-Marxists, it's not just intellectual ability that marks them out, is it?

You talk about not wanting an authenticity debate but you're the one who brought this up.  You're the one who said -

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 12:48:28 PM
I mean its a well worn joke in leftist circles but if you're leftist and you talk to different groups, working class and marginalised people want to talk about art and philosophy, they want to get to grips with the debates and ideas they rightly feel shut out from, but bourgie solipsists love their lived experiences and hate "book worship"

Which, to me anyway, and I may be wrong, looks like you're telling a working class non-intellectual to zip it because they might be being pegged as a bourgie solipsist otherwise.

As far as this goes -

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 12:57:53 PM
And I should add all power to you for it, but it's far cry away from living on a sink estate and having to work as a cleaner to pay your extortionate rent whilst looking after any kids you might have.

that was my option, try to do that or go here, the place I live now was literally the cheapest thing for sale, cheaper than most people in the UK spend on a car (I can't afford a car), it took my whole life savings and I bought it because I knew I couldn't afford to rent, so I chose to live in a place with one tap and one plug and work, over years, with no money (a cleaner and fruit-picker's wage) to make it habitable.  If you have a problem with that, get some help.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 01:22:55 PM
As you seem reluctant to think about this seriously, I invite you to consider the number of illiterate involved, radical and effective marxists of the 20th century that are highly regarded.  Think about the 20th century, think about how people achieved recognition in any sphere, even Marxism.  Consider the gender, race and so on of these super-Marxists, it's not just intellectual ability that marks them out, is it?

I invite you to consider what you've done here by associating "gender, race and so on" as something exterior to questions of "intellectual ability" and what that might imply. Or to associate that with illiteracy. Not all Marxist intellectuals were white men, even a hundred years ago.

Yes, a lot of people involved in struggles were illiterate. But you should think of this issue as a collective one and not about the aptitude or abilities of individuals. Illiteracy doesn't really say anything about how useful a person might find intellectual ideas or education, or what contribution being involved in that kind of thing might make to peoples lives. This is one of the reasons why interactions between workers and intellectuals were so important, and so effective.

(Anyone reading my posts may have noticed I have some basic neurological issue with reading and writing, someone of my background born a few decades early could have easily been an 'illiterate' )
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 01:49:24 PM
It's almost as if you're determined to misrepresent me.  You said -

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 11:45:03 AM
The most involved, radical and effective marxists of the 20th century were intellectuals for a reason.

I asked you to consider what other reasons (other than being intellectuals) there might be for particular individuals from that century to be remembered and upheld as super-Marxists.

It's quite obvious that if someone was illiterate, especially in the past, no matter how great their contribution or ideas, little trace of them would remain, even if the time they lived in had been accepting of leaders who were illiterate (and probably poor and uneducated too), which the 20th century was not.  And, of course, there were other constraints limiting the options open to many underprivileged groups, so members of those groups would also, likely, be under-represented.  That does not mean they weren't up to the job, it means that society, culture, prevented them from doing it.

It's like saying men are great leaders - look at all the kings we've had.  On the face of it, fair enough.  But when you consider what lies beneath, obviously silly.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 01:51:10 PM
Quote from: chveik on September 04, 2021, 01:20:48 PM
pol pot

Pol Pot's problem wasn't that he was ineffective. He could have done to be a lot less effective.

Quote
that's not the point, it's just that it's obvious that prominent marxist leaders would have had access to superior education at that time. i don't quite see why you need to sneer at grassroot stuff, you can organize a strike without coalescing with the local intellectual. i would say capital is more interested in destroying communist movements themselves than the encounter between workers and intellectuals (i can recognize that phenomenon but i think you're making too much of it). i mean working class people can read, they don't necessarily need sartre on a bucket talking to them to organize. i've heard your argument hundreds of times, maybe i'm just getting bored by it

I think there's a big difference between "grassroots" in the contemporary liberal view and what stuff like Labour organisation and mass protests look like before the end of the 1970s. Right now its the enshrined dogma that local, small and decentralised is good and anything else risks reproducing the oppressions of dominant society and all that stuff. But that's false, isn't it? Even if the theory is good, its just not working.

And then you've got the fact that grassroads, decentralised and bottom-up models IS the educated, privileged ideology today. It is the view that universities hold, that think tanks hold, that has all the institutional writing and theory behind it. No universities and NGOs are publishing papers calling for global working class solidarity and national,centralisation of labour power. They're preaching decentralisation, mobility, agility, grassroots...I'm sneering at because its our equivalent of Sartre standing on a bucket. Whereas poorer or more marginalised people are more likely to ask - why can't we have national orgs? Why can't we be internationalist? What's wrong we solidarity instead of demographic specificity? etc.

Its not the 1970s, in other words. The ideology that goes with "superior education" has changed with the times, and with that change the possibility of people with superior educations being able to connect with working class or migrant or disabled people is getting a lot less. I think because the concepts are a lot less useful than Marxism - Marxism has a powerful toolkit of ideas: commodities, alienation, ideology, base, superstructure, etc. I don't think there is much around that can match the immediacy of the value it had in the early 20th century. I mean, I bet you and I could have a great argument about Hardt and Negri but I highly doubt there are more than few groups world wide who get real practical value from something like Empire. I don't think climate migrancy is going to be help by anthropocene theory, etc.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 01:52:34 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 01:49:24 PM
It's like saying men are great leaders - look at all the kings we've had.  On the face of it, fair enough.  But when you consider what lies beneath, obviously silly.

But I'm not talking about great intellectuals or what demographic certain individuals fell into. I'm talking about collective movements that were characterised by contact between intellectuals and workers.

Marxist intellectuals were effective because they offered something unique and of practical value to the people they engaged with. Its not nothing to do with the social status "intellectual" has in certain parts of the world, "intellectual" here can mean autodidact just as much as university education.

Its not about status, its about being able to get people engaged with things they've been routinely excluded from. The more someone is about to conceptualise and think abstractly about the world around them, the more than can accomplish. Old school Marxists were GOATs at this and we've taken huge steps back. 
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 01:56:14 PM
Perhaps you should be clearer (and more concise).  You didn't include any of that in what you wrote.  You said -

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 11:45:03 AM
The most involved, radical and effective marxists of the 20th century were intellectuals for a reason.

The context of the conversation was me saying that endless - twirling of one's erudition - I believe I said - was off-putting, gatekeeping, excluding.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 01:57:54 PM
Don't be so fixated on the status implied. Think of what use things might have and to whom
Little marxist tip for ya
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 02:01:30 PM
You should also think about colonial situations where someone being an "intellectual" was anything but high status or gatekeepery

just because in 2021 being an intellectual signifies that you're probably a westerner with free time and some support doesnt mean that was necessarily true everywhere in the 20th century. It also doesn't account for the fact that no everyone could obtain books, study and discuss them without taking personal risks
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 04, 2021, 02:07:50 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 01:51:10 PM
Its not the 1970s, in other words. The ideology that goes with "superior education" has changed with the times, and with that change the possibility of people with superior educations being able to connect with working class or migrant or disabled people is getting a lot less. I think because the concepts are a lot less useful than Marxism - Marxism has a powerful toolkit of ideas: commodities, alienation, ideology, base, superstructure, etc. I don't think there is much around that can match the immediacy of the value it had in the early 20th century. I mean, I bet you and I could have a great argument about Hardt and Negri but I highly doubt there are more than few groups world wide who get real practical value from something like Empire. I don't think climate migrancy is going to be help by anthropocene theory, etc.

i spose there's a middle ground between the trans-historic 'toolkit' and the poetically abstract contemporary marxist theories. i hope so anyway

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 01:51:10 PM
Pol Pot's problem wasn't that he was ineffective. He could have done to be a lot less effective.

you know what i meant.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 02:01:30 PM
You should also think about colonial situations where someone being an "intellectual" was anything but high status or gatekeepery

just because in 2021 being an intellectual signifies that you're probably a westerner with free time and some support doesnt mean that was necessarily true everywhere in the 20th century. It also doesn't account for the fact that no everyone could obtain books, study and discuss them without taking personal risks

Do you understand that there's nothing wrong with being an intellectual?  No one is saying there's anything wrong with being an intellectual. 

What I'm saying, what I keep saying, is that larding simple truths and obvious statements with layers of gibberish puts a lot of people off.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 02:15:40 PM
Quote from: chveik on September 04, 2021, 02:07:50 PM
i spose there's a middle ground between the trans-historic 'toolkit' and the poetically abstract contemporary marxist theories. i hope so anyway

Yeah.

There's also no problem with poetically abstract theories too, so long as they produce trans-historic toolkits. Or just have aesthetic value, nowt wrong with making something pretty for its own sake.

But I think you need points of contact between people in situation and intellectuals for that to happen. I think the irony of late 20th century thought is that a lot of stuff that exhorted that we didn't need intellectual models, we didn't need abstract or conceptual thinking we just need to empower the grassroots and listen to people ... it was largely the product of people sitting at desks intellectualising and justifying things they thought should be true and useful rather than doing what the previous generation of marxists did and going and finding out

Feminists were ahead of the game with the Tyranny of Structurelessness.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 02:16:48 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
simple truths

no such thing, sorry
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 03:06:09 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 02:16:48 PM
sorry

No worries.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on September 04, 2021, 03:47:58 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 01:38:00 PM
(Anyone reading my posts may have noticed I have some basic neurological issue with reading and writing, someone of my background born a few decades early could have easily been an 'illiterate' )

Oh, I didn't notice that at all, tbh, and I'm sorry if my more harsh responses to your posts implied I was mocking this. That's absolutely not the case.

My issue has been that you clearly are well read and knowledgeable but, like many arts academics, are unwilling to tailor your points to your audience's level of understanding. While I get your point, saying 'Of course it's hard' doesn't do anything to engage people. Those intellectuals you were on about who organised with workers wouldn't have made that mistake. He was fictional, obviously, but I'm thinking of Frank Owen and the money trick.

The same doesn't seem to be true of science. Black holes and quantum physics are hard to understand too but instead of shrugging their shoulders, science educators try hard to use simpler language (or at least explain what the terms mean) and analogy to get those concepts across to the layman.

Although, there was that thing a few years ago with the fraudulent physicists, so wordy nonsense and a failure to DEFINE YOUR TERMS is sometimes a problem in science too.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 04:21:38 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 01:22:55 PM
that was my option, try to do that or go here, the place I live now was literally the cheapest thing for sale, cheaper than most people in the UK spend on a car (I can't afford a car), it took my whole life savings and I bought it because I knew I couldn't afford to rent, so I chose to live in a place with one tap and one plug and work, over years, with no money (a cleaner and fruit-picker's wage) to make it habitable.  If you have a problem with that, get some help.

Sorry did you not read, I said I don't have problem with that; "all power to you" in your choice to live the eternal life of a gap yah student; it's nice, for you.  Most cleaners don't have life savings to buy a villa in France is what I'm saying; and most people that have been able to buy their own homes and take low level jobs to bring in their income tend to appreciate the dynamic of this, appreciating the advantages and indeed the fact that it is their choice.

I'm not sure expat homeowners that have run to the sun are high on the list totemic socialists is what I'm saying; so consistently rinsing the trodden down cleaner look without recognising the how and why you are doing it is perhaps a little tone deaf to all those people that don't have all the packaging that comes with your situation.

I'm just trying to help "no fucking offence".
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 04, 2021, 04:25:38 PM
huge difference between expats having their second home and people like buelligan in france.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 04:26:29 PM
Quote from: Johnny Yesno on September 04, 2021, 03:47:58 PM
Those intellectuals you were on about who organised with workers wouldn't have made that mistake.

Yeah. Exactly. Its an incredible talent. I don't think I'd ever claim to be able to do the same. I've met and been around people with this talent and its incredible, but I think its something learned - no one is born being able to do it, its something where a persons dedication to their ideas show.

But at the same time I think the knee-jerk reaction against intellectualism and 'gatekeeping' that we have nowadays. The opposite to "its really hard, it takes a lot of effort to learn" is "its OBVIOUS, you already know it from your experiences, you just don't know the complicated words yet" - I think the latter is very common among leftists from university educated, middle or upper class backgrounds, and I think (to be generous to them) it in part comes from taking education for granted and not respecting that learning to grasp the world around you is a difficult thing and has many benefits v never having the opportunity

The truth is somewhere in the middle. But I stand by the statement about institutional thinking being more anti-intellectual than ever. The old marxist ideal of class consciousness and rational engagement at the level of the immediate class struggle has been dead for over sixty years if not longer. I don't want to generalise but I really think old school Marxist thought respected the intellectual autonomy of individual members of the work class far, far more than contemporary liberal or left thinking respects the same of "marginalised" or "oppressed" people (with some clear exceptions obv)

QuoteThe same doesn't seem to be true of science. Black holes and quantum physics are hard to understand too but instead of shrugging their shoulders, science educators try hard to use simpler language (or at least explain what the terms mean) and analogy to get those concepts across to the layman.

(digression on use of commonsense semantics and narrative models in sciences)

The thing is in physics there is a cut off where intuitive pictures of the world are likely to be false.

On the macro scale the more intuitive something is, very generally, more likely it is to be true. If you're given the water cycle as a diagram in school, you can picture it in your head as an image or a narrative, and the fact that you can do that helps builds your inner bullshit detector of how likely a scientific claim is to be true - does the simple, clear image in my head match the details and complex language scientists use?

But there is a cut off where stuff can't have a common sense picture because we don't live in an anthropocentric universe - the universe has zero obligation to make sense to us, and when we cross a certain point that fucks with individual ability to mentally picture things and it becomes a strictly collective endeavour. No individual person has a total or systematic image of the whole field, just their personal area of interest.

Any physicist who says he can give a simple explanation of quantum mechanics is lying to you, because quantum mechanics is a model of how certain things interact and not an image or narrative about the world. It doesn't describe things that happen within the boundaries of human experience or perception, it doesn't describe things you can talk about metaphorically. Even apparently innocuous terms like "spin" or "up" and "down" become incredibly problematic because they don't imply what their literal meanings suggest that they do. There's also the impossibility of framing these kind of theoretical works with narrative because they don't follow the linear and spatial arrangements that our minds construct around events.

This is a very interesting problem to me in terms of how we translate science into aesthetics and narrative  - on the one hand, you can't just say "only people who can read field equations can get this" but you can't create an intuitive image for lay audiences either, because that image wouldn't just be simplified, it would be false. Obviously science has to be for everyone, and everyone should know about the world around them. Its back to the drawing board time

Quote
Although, there was that thing a few years ago with the fraudulent physicists, so wordy nonsense and a failure to DEFINE YOUR TERMS is sometimes a problem in science too.

Bogdanoffs or the Sokel thing?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 04:28:01 PM
Quote from: chveik on September 04, 2021, 04:25:38 PM
huge difference between expats having their second homes and people like buelligan in france.

Yes there is; and there is a huge difference between cleaners working for a pittance in the UK to pay their rent and someone that had the funds to take advantage of the relative low cost of property in another country.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on September 04, 2021, 04:37:58 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 04:26:29 PM
But there is a cut off where stuff can't have a common sense picture because we don't live in an anthropocentric universe - the universe has zero obligation to make sense to us, and when we cross a certain point that fucks with individual ability to mentally picture things and it becomes a strictly collective endeavour. No individual person has a total or systematic image of the whole field, just their personal area of interest.

Any physicist who says he can give a simple explanation of quantum mechanics is lying to you, because quantum mechanics is a model of how certain things interact and not an image or narrative about the world. It doesn't describe things that happen within the boundaries of human experience or perception, it doesn't describe things you can talk about metaphorically. Even apparently innocuous terms like "spin" or "up" and "down" become incredibly problematic because they don't imply what their literal meanings suggest that they do. There's also the impossibility of framing these kind of theoretical works with narrative because they don't follow the linear and spatial arrangements that our minds construct around events.

This is a very interesting problem to me in terms of how we translate science into aesthetics and narrative  - on the one hand, you can't just say "only people who can read field equations can get this" but you can't create an intuitive image for lay audiences either, because that image wouldn't just be simplified, it would be false. Obviously science has to be for everyone, and everyone should know about the world around them. Its back to the drawing board time

I disagree. We have a model of atoms and molecules that works for the most part to explain certain physical phenomena. I was fortunate enough to have a chemistry teacher at school who explained up front that it was a load of crap but that it worked for making predictions at the level we needed it to. That's all I'm asking for.

QuoteBogdanoffs or the Sokel thing?

Bogdanoffs, I think. Kudos for knowing what the hell I was going on about given so little information.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 04, 2021, 04:44:52 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 04:28:01 PM
Yes there is; and there is a huge difference between cleaners working for a pittance in the UK to pay their rent and someone that had the funds to take advantage of the relative low cost of property in another country.

does it really matter for the present argument? we don't need this kind of competition between a version of working class people that don't have any agency vs people class traitors that somehow have chosen to be poor. you do know that these days a shitload of people leave their country to find better conditions elsewhere
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 04:53:43 PM
..
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 05:02:46 PM
Quote from: chveik on September 04, 2021, 04:44:52 PM
does it really matter for the present argument? we don't need this kind of competition between a version of working class people that don't have any agency vs people class traitors that somehow have chosen to be poor. you do know that these days a shitload of people leave their country to find better conditions elsewhere

I agree.  I wasn't the one that brought up cleaners.

What matters for Marxists and Socialists is what you do; if you are born into a wealthy family but identify with the struggle of the poor and actively support real world solutions towards helping them then you are more of socialist than a "working class hero" that does nothing but moan about their plight.  It is what the original term "privilege" was designed for it just only got popular (unsurprisingly) with the (white) middle classes when someone put "white" in front of it.

Privilege is about using what you have to help others; so in my view someone that stays and fights doing work that actively progresses working class people interests are doing more for socialism than someone doing nothing but working in a poorly paid job.  That does not make the latter a worse person, it makes them a worse socialist.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 05:06:23 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 04:21:38 PM
Sorry did you not read, I said I don't have problem with that; "all power to you" in your choice to live the eternal life of a gap yah student; it's nice, for you.  Most cleaners don't have life savings to buy a villa in France is what I'm saying; and most people that have been able to buy their own homes and take low level jobs to bring in their income tend to appreciate the dynamic of this, appreciating the advantages and indeed the fact that it is their choice.

I'm not sure expat homeowners that have run to the sun are high on the list totemic socialists is what I'm saying; so consistently rinsing the trodden down cleaner look without recognising the how and why you are doing it is perhaps a little tone deaf to all those people that don't have all the packaging that comes with your situation.

I'm just trying to help "no fucking offence".

Heheh.  I don't live in a villa - but you know that.  Sticks in your craw to imagine anything else.  Makes it difficult to be cunty, so you have to keep pretending I do. 

The only reason I even mentioned it was because of the bourgie solipsist shite - it's one thing to be at the bottom of the social pyramid but when a person guffing on about Marxism has to dress you up as bourgeois, in order to deny your right to an opinion whilst they lecture everyone - regardless of their own position, not even having that called into question, well, not awfully honest, is it?  Really, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Why do you need to attack me, without any foundation to what you say, personally?  Do you get some kind of weird thrill out of it?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 05:07:13 PM
I never called you that. But they do exist. They're like hippies with good healthcare.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: bgmnts on September 04, 2021, 05:08:03 PM
I wish I were wealthy enough to be a socialist :(
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 05:10:14 PM
Quote from: bgmnts on September 04, 2021, 05:08:03 PM
I wish I were wealthy enough to be a socialist :(

Don't worry maybe you can watch someone live stream a revolutionary praxis from their penthouse someday.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 05:12:54 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 05:02:46 PM
I agree.  I wasn't the one that brought up cleaners.

What matters for Marxists and Socialists is what you do; if you are born into a wealthy family but identify with the struggle of the poor and actively support real world solutions towards helping them then you are more of socialist than a "working class hero" that does nothing but moan about their plight.  It is what the original term "privilege" was designed for it just only got popular (unsurprisingly) with the (white) middle classes when someone put "white" in front of it.

Privilege is about using what you have to help others; so in my view someone that stays and fights doing work that actively progresses working class people interests are doing more for socialism than someone doing nothing but working in a poorly paid job.  That does not make the latter a worse person, it makes them a worse socialist.

Sorry, I missed this.  So that's your problem, ego.  You think it's a competition.  It's not a competition.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 05:13:38 PM
Does praxis just mean 'practice', why can't cunts cut the 'discourse' and say what they mean. Fuck's sake.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 04, 2021, 05:13:53 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 05:02:46 PM
I agree.  I wasn't the one that brought up cleaners.

What matters for Marxists and Socialists is what you do; if you are born into a wealthy family but identify with the struggle of the poor and actively support real world solutions towards helping them then you are more of socialist than a "working class hero" that does nothing but moan about their plight.  It is what the original term "privilege" was designed for it just only got popular (unsurprisingly) with the (white) middle classes when someone put "white" in front of it.

Privilege is about using what you have to help others; so in my view someone that stays and fights doing work that actively progresses working class people interests are doing more for socialism than someone doing nothing but working in a poorly paid job.  That does not make the latter a worse person, it makes them a worse socialist.

you clearly don't agree since you just went and wrote this ridiculous statement. you're nothing but your alienation, that's going to be a real hit among the masses.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 05:23:28 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 05:06:23 PM
Why do you need to attack me, without any foundation to what you say, personally?  Do you get some kind of weird thrill out of it?

Tbh with you at this stage Buelligan you are for all intents and purposes a troll; you barge into conversations and sign off by saying "no fucking offence", then you cry bully which is this current phase, next it will be how people are obsessed with you or that "they are just too sensitive" whilst you spend weeks sniping at people on the forum and getting upset when people call you out for it.

It's a complete hypocrisy feast, nothing unique to me and very typical of you.  There is a very good reason why you are on so many posters ignore lists  - including mine which is where you are going now - for the sake of the thread and other posters.

Sans vouloir vous offenser au revior.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Bernice on September 04, 2021, 05:24:06 PM
The thing about socialism, yeah, is it's a nice idea in practice but in reality people are innately greedy. Think about it.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 05:25:26 PM
Quote from: chveik on September 04, 2021, 05:13:53 PM
you clearly don't agree since you just went and wrote this ridiculous statement. you're nothing but your alienation, that's going to be a real hit among the masses.

Sorry I'm not following; taking those 10 words out of context when it is comparable to the clause that precedes it proves what exactly?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 05:30:35 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 05:23:28 PM
Tbh with you at this stage Buelligan you are for all intents and purposes a troll; you barge into conversations and sign off by saying "no fucking offence", then you cry bully which is this current phase, next it will be how people are obsessed with you or that "they are just too sensitive" whilst you spend weeks sniping at people on the forum and getting upset when people call you out for it.

It's a complete hypocrisy feast, nothing unique to me and very typical of you.  There is a very good reason why you are on so many posters ignore lists  - including mine which is where you are going now - for the sake of the thread and other posters.

Sans vouloir vous offenser au revior.

Yeah.  It's all me, just making stuff up and cry-bullying whilst I secretly live in a palatial imaginary villa, like a great big troll who unfortunately works in a menial underpaid sector which makes me a class traitor and bad socialist.  Get away with you.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 05:34:39 PM
Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 05:13:38 PM
Does praxis just mean 'practice', why can't cunts cut the 'discourse' and say what they mean. Fuck's sake.

Originally praxis was used to mean the practice of a specific theory or idea rather than practice in general.

Marxists used to use it to mean specifically processes where Marxist ideas were realised.

Now we're about ten layers of irony deeper than that.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 05:37:28 PM
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/214/homerblank.jpg)
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 05:39:34 PM
Look all I know is the Fall and semantics

edit: and remembering crisps
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 04, 2021, 05:40:40 PM
was mark e smith a centrist?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 05:42:03 PM
Dunno, I've never examined his praxes.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 05:42:28 PM
He had 2000 posts on r/neoliberal
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 05:51:44 PM
He was an e-centrist I believe (two levels, thanks).
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 06:02:02 PM
I banged the desk so hard my Walter Benjamin funko pop fell over
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on September 04, 2021, 06:06:57 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 06:02:02 PM
I banged the desk so hard my Walter Benjamin funko pop fell over

Are you talking about your cock here?

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 05:34:39 PM
Originally praxis was used to mean the practice of a specific theory or idea rather than practice in general.

Marxists used to use it to mean specifically processes where Marxist ideas were realised.

Now we're about ten layers of irony deeper than that.


That's what I mean: define your terms.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 06:09:05 PM
the axiom lads aren't gonna like this
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 06:11:28 PM
Love having to run similar concepts through a mental lookup table to unpack them.

Oh wait, no I don't. I alsi reckon Kurt Vonnegut was way more impressive than Will Self.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 04, 2021, 06:12:42 PM
going a bit too hard on the cranberry juice i see
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 06:15:21 PM
A Klee painting named Angelus Novus shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call your mum.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 06:19:17 PM
Quote from: chveik on September 04, 2021, 06:12:42 PM
going a bit too hard on the cranberry juice i see
Lol fair cop. SwiftKey has been acting strange before I had my first 'cranberry juice' though.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle on September 04, 2021, 06:19:24 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 03, 2021, 11:02:16 AM

Marx = a person.
Marxism = a method of analysis.
Socialism = an economic model.
Communism = a form (or not as the case maybe) of government.

That's the most succinct discription of those terms i've come across, thank you.  I sometimes stuggle to seperate them, people seem to use them interchangeably
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on September 04, 2021, 06:24:03 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 04:53:43 PM
Chemistries a good example because the diagrams and formulae are overtly a "load of crap" but still work for communication. (I was reading something about science and aesthetics recently that used the example of chemistry diagrams being bollocks but i can't remember it, agh) But that doesn't work lower than the atomic level because you can't make models and draw diagrams of most of the interactions that happen below the level of protons and electrons and the like. Its all math and probablistics after a certain point, the particles aren't even particles, they're not even objects in the way we'd think of objects.

Human understanding of the world works by creating meaning by coupling words to things. Then once we have enough of these word-object or concept-object pairings, we can start doing the same not with objects but with relations between objects, then with the relations between relations, and we can start building up grammars and narratives. Its like putting a second row of bricks on top where the second row makes the connections between all the bricks you put down in the first row, and then next does the same and you're getting sturdier and yet more complex without making the initial pattern more complex. The complexity emerges from the initial simplicity.

What's important here is that we're doing the work cognitively - we're creating meaning out of nothing by making images in our minds and then relating those images to each other. But the really crucial thing is we experience that not as the production of meaning by cognitive process, but as the uncovering of meaning that is already in the world. This works with both artificial and natural things - when you read a sentence, you're making a meaning for the sentence, the sentence is like a machine that makes meaning, but you experience as the sentence already meaning something and you finding out the meaning by reading it. The same with the natural world - when you see a tree you're using language and concepts to interpret what you're seeing as an Oak Tree or Chestnut Tree, what season it is, and all that. But really none of those "meanings" are in the thing itself, you're making them all. What's there is a tree which doesn't care about language. Its indifferent to meaning.

So there's this bias to contend with that the meaning plays a part in the world around us, that when we're experiencing things or thinking about them, what's happening is we're uncovering and understanding meanings. But the natural world doesn't have meaning like this, and in the extremities of cosmology, physics and even human history that completely fucks with the human desire to have reality match to our intuitions. Its not too far from Marxist notions of ideology against class consciousness, especially in the sense where innate prejudice towards meaning and away from value will make people act against their own interests if they have no conceptual tools to set themselves straight. Like, the experience of nationality as an inherently meaningful thing rather than just a combination of a bunch of arbitrary values built up over years.

I really wish I knew what you are saying here. It looks like a longwinded way of saying something trivially true but then I wonder if I've missed something. I know meaning is something we place on our surroundings but short of being mindful of this, what do you suggest we do instead? Clearly, the tree you mentioned doesn't know the season we call winter but there's a strong correlation between the season we call winter and the colour of the tree. It might even be causal! Better not check, though, eh, because of the limitations of language.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on September 04, 2021, 06:25:45 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 06:15:21 PM
A Klee painting named Angelus Novus shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call your mum.

Parklife!
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Bernice on September 04, 2021, 06:27:28 PM
Walter Benjamin would have been absolute tits in Quadrophenia.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Zetetic on September 04, 2021, 06:34:42 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 12:42:15 PM
A good reason why liberal governments took a specifically anti-intellectual tack during the cold war was that intellectuals were extremely effective at reaching factory workers, mobilizing immigrant communities, and leading struggles against colonialism. Vastly more so than present day 'community organising' could ever be. Turns out inspiring people and opening them to new ideas, new toolkits and concepts and treating them with dignity as your equals is more effective outreach than Lol Humans Suck misanthropy.
My experience of community organising in 2021 Britain has had a pretty heavy emphasis on "new toolkits and concepts", taking people and their problems seriously, and finding common purpose with them.

And I'd reckon that the possibilities of "reaching factory workers" and "mobilising immigrant communities" have been narrowed much more by changes amongst those populations than anything else.




I'd be interested in what any of the people in this thread count as "effective" (and beneficial, in their view) individuals or organisations in Britain, or France, or wherever in 2021.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 06:37:16 PM
I try to avoid anyone that utilises agile ceremonies, I'll tell you that for nothing.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 06:40:42 PM
Quote from: Johnny Yesno on September 04, 2021, 06:24:03 PM
I really wish I knew what you are saying here. It looks like a longwinded way of saying something trivially true but then I wonder if I've missed something. I know meaning is something we place on our surroundings but short of being mindful of this, what do you suggest we do instead? Clearly, the tree you mentioned doesn't know the season we call winter but there's a strong correlation between the season we call winter and the colour of the tree. It might even be causal! Better not check, though, eh, because of the limitations of language.

He is saying that there is a limit to understanding the real world; somethings are beyond observation i.e. his good example of quantum physics it's a model as of yet we have not been able to directly observe quantum because of the observer effect.  Likewise you can directly see photons even though they are hitting your eye this very second.  He is then talking about "signs" in that a tree is tree because it we say it is, we've created a semantic perception of trees because we can't actually say what a tree actually is, it's just a tree because we define it this way.   In this light we could reorganise the taxonomy of the world if we wanted too as it is dependent on the perceived qualities we choose as our guide, chose different qualities and you get different outcomes.

This is called the theory of arbitrary signs (there are several different approaches to it).  It's very fucking important and clever stuff it's just you don't understand it.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 06:42:44 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 06:37:16 PM
I try to avoid anyone that utilises agile ceremonies, I'll tell you that for nothing.

You're right, however the core-concept of agile is 're-evaluate stuff regularly, don't gather your requirements at the start and produce something that isn't fit for purpose', that is sane, the other 80% is cultist nonsense, pointless ceremony and management speak though.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 06:43:13 PM
Quote from: Johnny Yesno on September 04, 2021, 06:24:03 PM
I really wish I knew what you are saying here. It looks like a longwinded way of saying something trivially true but then I wonder if I've missed something. I know meaning is something we place on our surroundings but short of being mindful of this, what do you suggest we do instead? Clearly, the tree you mentioned doesn't know the season we call winter but there's a strong correlation between the season we call winter and the colour of the tree. It might even be causal! Better not check, though, eh, because of the limitations of language.

Our understanding of the world isn't so much limited by language, but by the fact that the way that language helps us understand the world gives a fundamentally false intuition - necessarily, just out of the way it works. That is that we're deciphering and understanding meanings which are already in the world rather than creating models and images of the world.

I think we should be more attentive to the fact that understanding and interacting with our surroundings is a fundamentally creative activity (praxis again, as Marx used the term). Rationally we know that the world doesn't have meanings already baked into it, but because of the way language and thinking works, our intuitions suggest otherwise.

Its one thing to say to someone - look, rationally you know that a tree is just a tree, it doesn't require meaning to exist. But its another to get people to recognise that even looking at a tree and thinking "thats a tree" is a fundamentally productive activity. Actually transfering that rational insight to how you think about your own creative and communicative abilities, thats the hard part. And part of what makes it hard is that "meaning" part obscures the "productive" part - because it transfers a mental activity (interpretation) to the object being interpretted, and sees the result of interpretation as a feature of the object.

Getting people to understand that apparently valueless, normal day to day activities of communication and understanding are actually feats of productive ingenuity would be a good thing. Rather that treat it just a matter of acquiring the right interpretations and understandings, the right words and the right concepts. This is Marxist alienation on a really basic level - you're doing something productive, intellectual nuanced practically all the time and there is little value attached to it. Little recognition. I think the most obvious result of this in the world is that working class kids are still taught through parrot learning and repetition a lot of time, whereas in private schools they're taught through activities, games, etc. that emphasize personal understanding and creativity, building mental models and the like. Because if you're going into call centers, factory jobs, etc. you're not expected to think critically or value your own understanding. But if you're going to be a lawyer or a teacher you're expected to think of your understanding of the world as important and something you actively curate.  Society ends up with a class division of 'intelligent' and 'unintelligent' thats based around income group and occupation rather than what their actual aptitudes are, or even relative level of education.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 06:44:54 PM
Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 06:42:44 PM
You're right, however the core-concept of agile is 're-evaluate stuff regularly, don't gather your requirements at the start and produce something that isn't fit for purpose',

Like using the word agile instead of saying that?  That sort of thing?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 06:51:09 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 06:44:54 PM
Like using the word agile instead of saying that?  That sort of thing?

If 'agile' was just literal shorthand for that, it would actually be good though.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 06:51:36 PM
Agilé, the Ralph of God
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 06:59:25 PM
Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 06:51:09 PM
If 'agile' was just literal shorthand for that, it would actually be good though.

The problem is though, it's like all other slang or acronyms or whatevs, it does not increase a wider understanding.  It does not open gates to everyone.  Fine, if you're communicating inside a discrete group but it diminishes the pool of people who will know what the fuck you're on about or even continue reading or listening.  Why would any normal person, not obsessed with teacher noticing them, bother with something as self-defeating as that?

Ronan Burtenshaw touches on this - this desire to make speech, especially where it touches on politics or culture, a controlled domain where only those who own the correct language may walk.  Not Marxist.

https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2020/1/february/free-speech-and-the-question-of-power
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 07:01:02 PM
I'm not sure common shorthand is entirely bad, and ultimately it's how words are formed. German compound-nouns are probably better though.

Redefining existing words to mean ethereal nonsense is terrible though. So is exchanging common words for unusual words that mean the same thing if you are trying to speak clearly.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 07:02:38 PM
Of course, that's clear.  But when you're looking to communicate with as wide a group as possible, when you want to persuade and include them, don't use language that excludes them.  It's basic.

EtA  You edited but I hope my answer is still clear.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 07:04:54 PM
On the other hand, ideology wouldn't function at all if it wasn't able to say "its obvious innit" in response to any critique. Work harder for more wages, just common sense

simple as
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 07:06:28 PM
Quote from: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 07:02:38 PM
Of course, that's clear.  But when you're looking to communicate with as wide a group as possible, when you want to persuade and include them, don't use language that excludes them.  It's basic.

EtA  You edited but I hope my answer is still clear.

See now I think you're being too charitable about their intent.

In their use (perhaps I went on a tangent about the term's overall use - sorry) I think it is useless.

It's designed to sound good and make the managerial classes feel warm and fuzzy. That's it. I sincerely hope everyone else thinks it is the meaningless nonsense it is and sees through it.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 04, 2021, 07:19:41 PM
Yes, I think we agree wholeheartedly on that.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: pigamus on September 04, 2021, 07:59:59 PM
I agree about management speak but I wouldn't want to tar all of philosophy with the same brush. I wouldn't want to be shouting "Parklife!" at Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 08:01:52 PM
Quote from: pigamus on September 04, 2021, 07:59:59 PM
I agree about management speak but I wouldn't want to tar all of philosophy with the same brush. I wouldn't want to be shouting "Parklife!" at Ludwig Wittgenstein.

What about when he was hitting all them kids
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 08:03:38 PM
(https://i.redd.it/ym5i7o4qji731.jpg)
Park life!

Its like Bob Dylan in pampers isn't good enough for some hoity toity types.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 08:04:36 PM
who hasn't had a wank in a trench
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 08:05:36 PM
the last Blackadder episode could have been so much better

I bet Phil Cool would've been available and all
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 08:11:45 PM
based on how frequently I knock one out when I feel a bit glum and hungover, if you scale that up to being sent to a war against my will, well, I'd probably get shot with my cock in my hand.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 08:21:40 PM
That'd make a great war monument

the queen could hang a wreath off it
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 08:28:32 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 08:21:40 PM
That'd make a great war monument

the queen could hang a wreath off it

It'd be like that guy in pompei who everyone recons was immortalised knocking one out.

But before pedants correct me, is unfortunately reckoned not to have :(
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 08:31:08 PM
That's disappointing. It was fun to imagine that it was the sight of the volcano that got him in the mood
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 08:32:00 PM
FUCKIN FINALLLY *drops pants*
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 08:35:53 PM
I always assumed it was 'one last hurrah'.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on September 04, 2021, 08:59:51 PM
Phwoooarr! Igneous ejaculation.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on September 04, 2021, 09:03:40 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 06:40:42 PM
He is saying that there is a limit to understanding the real world; somethings are beyond observation i.e. his good example of quantum physics it's a model as of yet we have not been able to directly observe quantum because of the observer effect.  Likewise you can directly see photons even though they are hitting your eye this very second.  He is then talking about "signs" in that a tree is tree because it we say it is, we've created a semantic perception of trees because we can't actually say what a tree actually is, it's just a tree because we define it this way.   In this light we could reorganise the taxonomy of the world if we wanted too as it is dependent on the perceived qualities we choose as our guide, chose different qualities and you get different outcomes.

This is called the theory of arbitrary signs (there are several different approaches to it).  It's very fucking important and clever stuff it's just you don't understand it.

No, I don't understand why it's anything but stating the obvious.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle on September 04, 2021, 09:09:51 PM
Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 07:01:02 PM
So is exchanging common words for unusual words that mean the same thing if you are trying to speak clearly.

Will Self has an annoying habbit of this.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle on September 04, 2021, 09:13:58 PM
Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 07:06:28 PM
See now I think you're being too charitable about their intent.

In their use (perhaps I went on a tangent about the term's overall use - sorry) I think it is useless.

It's designed to sound good and make the managerial classes feel warm and fuzzy. That's it. I sincerely hope everyone else thinks it is the meaningless nonsense it is and sees through it.

We do "Agile" at work.  It certinaly dosn't help us engineers do our jobs any better, but it provides a raft of pointless stats to middle managers.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 04, 2021, 09:20:51 PM
Quote from: Johnny Yesno on September 04, 2021, 09:03:40 PM
No, I don't understand why it's anything but stating the obvious.

I get why things seem obvious when stated as generalities, but in practice which theory is suited to which method is the difficult part and not all are mutually compatible and its not obvious which is best suited.

For example, Trenter is right I'm talking about arbitrary signs - because I'm interested in the philosophy of aesthetics, narrative studies, etc. and its useful to me think about creativity, alienation, ideology, what's called 'free play' and all that.

But much of what I've said is contradictory to other ways of talking about the same thing - discourse analysis, semiotics and social construction all have different views. I might be combative and say, well people who take those approaches are generally wrong and I'm right, but in practice its more about what is more compelling in a certain situation. Just taken generally if a social constructivist or foundationalist (if any still exist) was to argue that meaning is already latent in the world because we put it there when we acquire knowledge, because the notion of a pre-social 'natural world' is senseless or because the universe is logically coherent totality which includes all human languages it could sound just as 'obvious' even though its saying the opposite to what I said.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 09:21:27 PM
Quote from: Johnny Yesno on September 04, 2021, 09:03:40 PM
No, I don't understand why it's anything but stating the obvious.

Ah of course, it's obvious, silly Saussare, and people think he is one of the most important linguists that's ever lived but Johnny YesNo completed linguistics with his hands behind his back.


I think there might be a bit more to this all than you are willing to consider.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 09:25:02 PM
Quote from: Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle on September 04, 2021, 09:13:58 PM
We do "Agile" at work.  It certinaly dosn't help us engineers do our jobs any better, but it provides a raft of pointless stats to middle managers.

Yeah so do I.

Most of it is management bollocks, but the whole 'incremental' cycle of small requirements and features is fundamentally better for engineers than the 'waterfall' thing where some business analysts try and make a spec up front then engineers make the thing and everyone then tests it and realises it doesn't work and isn't what they wanted.

Assuming whatever engineering you do is flexible enough to accommodate that, if you're building physical objects it probably isn't.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 09:52:40 PM
Isn't agile primarily used in software development.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 09:55:40 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 09:52:40 PM
Isn't agile primarily used in software development.

Yes (I am a software engineer), but it would seem it's getting shoehorned into other areas of management willy-nilly with no real regard for whether the actual workers are aligned to it.

It's all bollocks, a lot of agile is nonsense and the rest of it is stuff to sidestep old laborious/pointless work processes in the industry, but everyone adopts the pointless ceremony and keeps the shit it was meant to sidestep, fitting it around all the crap.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle on September 04, 2021, 09:59:18 PM
Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 09:25:02 PM
Yeah so do I.

Most of it is management bollocks, but the whole 'incremental' cycle of small requirements and features is fundamentally better for engineers than the 'waterfall' thing where some business analysts try and make a spec up front then engineers make the thing and everyone then tests it and realises it doesn't work and isn't what they wanted.

Assuming whatever engineering you do is flexible enough to accommodate that, if you're building physical objects it probably isn't.

Yeah, i get the intent of it, and I can see how it would work for software devs.  I think it's a bit shoe horned to be used throughout our entire org, for us devops/cloudy types some of the more mundane stuff we do dosn't really fit into sprints in a neat way.  My main problem is that people that practice  frameworks like Agile and ITIL almost see it as a religion.  As you say, alot of it is cods wallop.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on September 04, 2021, 10:00:09 PM
It's the problem of any encapsulation of a concept into a single phrase. It's handy for those that have worked and understand the concept but it's always picked up by those that don't as a buzzwords and misused and mangled beyond all recognition. To get true clarity you have to decompress catch-all umbrella names into real practical entities.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 10:02:45 PM
As someone that has had to do a lot of project management work over the last few years (and is writing a thesis on implementation science i.e. how to get shit done) I would say, whilst gantts and project plans are useful, being someone that can get on with developers/engineers/staff from outside of their team is the most valuable skill for a project manager to have.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 10:03:03 PM
Quote from: Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle on September 04, 2021, 09:59:18 PM
Yeah, i get the intent of it, and I can see how it would work for software devs.  I think it's a bit shoe horned to be used throughout our entire org, for us devops/cloudy types some of the more mundane stuff we do dosn't really fit into sprints in a neat way.  My main problem is that people that practice  frameworks like Agile and ITIL almost see it as a religion.  As you say, alot of it is cods wallop.

As I say I reckon most of it's shite. If you're doing sprints try and pull at threads to see if you can do 'kanban'.

It's all nonsense but kanban is basically the same but you don't have to do any of the planning/demo/review/retro meetings that serve little purpose and waste developer time*

*sometimes planning is useful if you have a receptive boss.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle on September 04, 2021, 10:03:08 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 09:52:40 PM
Isn't agile primarily used in software development.

I think that was the original use, but it's now being adopted throughout all of IT, including dev ops, networking, sysadmin stuff etc.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 04, 2021, 10:08:18 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 10:02:45 PM
As someone that has had to do a lot of project management work over the last few years (and is writing a thesis on implementation science i.e. how to get shit done) I would say, whilst gantts and project plans are useful, being someone that can get on with developers/engineers/staff from outside of their team is the most valuable skill for a project manager to have.

Oh absolutely. My last boss was a software engineer-turned-boss who was useless and followed the process to the letter but could't organise a piss-up in a brewery and when questioned on the efficacy of some of the more pointless aspects would chant textbook philosophy to try and justify it (they did that when I reviewed some of the more pointless parts of their code as well, lol).

By contrast my new boss (after the predecessor left) is software adjacent, but not well-versed to dealing with software teams and is fundamentally a much better boss because she listens, and frequently has the question "why are we doing this then?" in the back of her mind.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: servese43 on September 05, 2021, 05:37:02 AM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 04, 2021, 11:41:35 AM
You do realise this is just the same drivel that right-wingers throw out against lefties arguing that hitler was a "socialist".  I'm genuinely interested in how people cannot see this as the same rubbish.

Even the bit in that wiki page after this chaps alleged leftism (opposing privatisation and deregulation) says "citation needed"; presuming it is true; there is this quite important thing about Marxism and Socialism in that it has to be "international" hence why you have the "international movements" the reason why it became international is because to attend to its essentially humanist foundations it does not see nationality as a positive segregating force in the world.

Hence way national socialism is something very different and in opposition to Marxism despite it using in part the economic model.

I thought we all knew this.

Ash Sarkar is a Marxist, Jeremy Corbyn is a Socialist, The Black Panthers were Marxist and so was Martin Luther King, Ana Mendieta was a feminist-cuban-Marxist, Franz Fanon was a Marxist, There is literally thousands and thousands of dead Jewish people that were minorites murdered for being Marxists, the communist party of Britain was founded by a Marxist-feminist (Dora Monteflore).  There are literally Marxist groups in the Middle East being murdered right now for trying to fight against nationalist regimes.....but for some reason Paul Embry is the embodiment of Socialism.

Yeah fair enough. He has a lot of (almost all of his views are) piece-of-shit right wing views, and the only way he could be considered left-wing in any sense of the term is on some economic matters like opposing privatisation and de-regulation. I suspect I've misunderstood the point of this thread because I was never trying to claim he was a socialist or anything like that.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on September 05, 2021, 07:00:52 PM
Yeah but the modern use of left wing is an umbrella term that includes a bunch of perspectives of which socialism is only one. Left wing includes socialism but is not equal to it.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 06, 2021, 11:43:40 AM
Quote from: jamiefairlie on September 05, 2021, 07:00:52 PM
Yeah but the modern use of left wing is an umbrella term that includes a bunch of perspectives of which socialism is only one. Left wing includes socialism but is not equal to it.

Yes and perhaps this is the problem;

"I want a world were everyone is nice to each other (like me because I am so nice, perfect and righteous) and there is no racism or sexism which should be easy as people should just should see this as obvious as is breathing" is very different from "if you want to improve the world for the majority of people in it you need to fundamentally change the economic structures that they lived under. This takes organisation and education as to why such a change would be beneficial to the masses and work against counter narratives that are used to coerce and control the population"

I think leftwing for all intents and purposes is about socialism the idea that "being nice" (or rather claiming that you are the arbiter of good) belongs to socialism is flawed; most religions claim this; democratic socialism is a form of humanist-egalitarianism with an actual plan for economics and government.  Without the latter you are no different from a centrist; they learned how to wring their hands and blow smoke up peoples asses in order to make themselves seem virtuous a long time ago.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Bernice on September 06, 2021, 11:48:22 AM
both wings are on the same turkey mate.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 11:53:09 AM
Quote from: Zetetic on September 04, 2021, 06:34:42 PM

I'd be interested in what any of the people in this thread count as "effective" (and beneficial, in their view) individuals or organisations in Britain, or France, or wherever in 2021.

By and large, I think of lot the discussion in this thread would be bolstered by examples whenever general claims are being made.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 06, 2021, 12:05:18 PM
Quote from: Bernice on September 06, 2021, 11:48:22 AM
both wings are on the same turkey mate.

Not really one simply engages in magical thinking (and I'm not saying this is all and always bad) the other is a pragmatic attempt to change the world.

Religion is a good model for this; Marx understood that magical thinking around kindness occupied the minds of the masses in place of real world change they could hope to achieve; and like religious orders of the past now we have people claiming moral superiority and narcissistic commentaries on their own virtuousness being confused with actual progressives who want to get shit done.  There is a lot to this and the psychology of the middle and upper middle classes.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Buelligan on September 06, 2021, 12:13:23 PM
Quote from: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 11:53:09 AM
By and large, I think of lot the discussion in this thread would be bolstered by examples whenever general claims are being made.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 06, 2021, 12:13:43 PM
Quote from: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 11:53:09 AM
By and large, I think of lot the discussion in this thread would be bolstered by examples whenever general claims are being made.

Two for you....

Unions still hold the best solution for change - they are not infallible but they are democratic organisations that can ameliorate some of the problems of individualism.

The Good Law Project - whilst ultimately middle class[nb]be mindful that when I'm saying middle class that doesn't mean "bad people" as I've said many times they don't technically exist in Marxism they are in reality slightly more liberated with the ability to control, and to varying degrees, own their own labour - we are squeezed through the meat grinder of capital and this results in a variegated working class - class consciousness is realising this; doing something about this then is to be a socialist[/nb] in make up is doing some great work and shows a model of how crowd funding can be translated into direct action - they are doing something and fair play to them.

You don't need these groups though; one the most important things is for socialists to get themselves into positions of power and influence to increase representation of socialist interests.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 12:31:40 PM
Cheers, Trenter.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 06, 2021, 02:27:20 PM
.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: bgmnts on September 06, 2021, 02:28:50 PM
Paradoxically, it's usually only the psychopaths who desire power over other humans.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on September 06, 2021, 03:01:54 PM
Quote from: bgmnts on September 06, 2021, 02:28:50 PM
Paradoxically, it's usually only the psychopaths who desire power over other humans.

There's nothing wrong with seeking power, per se.

Quote from: MLKPower without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 06, 2021, 03:51:08 PM
Quote from: MLK on September 06, 2021, 03:01:54 PM
Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.

It's a great quote and one to "think about" perhaps. No doubt there are others here though that know better than Dr King.

There is a very good reason we are seeing this rejection of Marxism and Socialism proper btw (in which ever way people want to dress it up as); it's because it is convenient for (western and white) middle class people in their search to deal with the internal psychological turmoil of enjoying the proceeds of capital.

There is work out there emerging about this (as mentioned) under the domain of "profilicity" which is identifying a connection between this new "being seen to be moral superiors" and the technological advancements that allow the online editing of identity and the reward systems for online morality.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 03:58:13 PM
Rancière once said one only thinks of 'power' once specifically political thinking has become exhausted. Either in terms of acquiring power or thinking of political bodies as power structures. The more the word power becomes the dominant term, the more politics itself become identified with the exercise of power, the less likely new political subjectivity becomes.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 06, 2021, 04:00:23 PM
and he was right
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 04:09:51 PM
And yet if you say the love of truth is the love of ones own weakness, they'll throw you in jail.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 06, 2021, 04:17:02 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 03:58:13 PM
Rancière once said one only thinks of 'power' once specifically political thinking has become exhausted. Either in terms of acquiring power or thinking of political bodies as power structures. The more the word power becomes the dominant term, the more politics itself become identified with the exercise of power, the less likely new political subjectivity becomes.

Power is always problematic interpersonally and intrapersonally; if you like we can talk about the Foucaldian technologies of the self  and how interpersonal power develops into action and choice but it's obviously quite obvious that there needs to be some power enacted in the world.  We have devised systems to control and shape power, the most obvious being democracy, it acts as a check and balance on power, it is a reflective capacity - what parliament actually is meant to do - this is why at an intrapersonal level those unable to reflect on their own behaviours fit much more neatly into the idea of psychopathy (narcissistic personality disorder if you want to an actual diagnosis).

We don't need to think about this too much; there isn't any sensible debate in saying we should never seek power to make the world a better place; that isn't sensible or even possible.


TLDR Rancienne is a dick, political thinking and politic action is power and that power isn't as distinguishable from whatever definition he wants paste onto it as he thinks; it's nonsense; jibberish......."oh no I just thought of parliament as having power; now I can't remember what politics I believe".  Complete nonsense.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 06, 2021, 04:21:32 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 06, 2021, 04:17:02 PM
TLDR Rancienne is a dick, political thinking and politic action is power and that power isn't as distinguishable from whatever definition he wants paste onto it as he thinks; it's nonsense; jibberish......."oh no I just thought of parliament as having power; now I can't remember what politics I believe".  Complete nonsense.

have you even read him?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 04:24:05 PM
I reckon you can start thinking of "power" when you're trying not to be evicted or trying to get paid what you've been told you would be.

Perhaps those situations exhaust people's political thinking - if so, that only underlines the need for power to enable thinking about things other than being evicted.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 06, 2021, 04:26:51 PM
Quote from: chveik on September 06, 2021, 04:21:32 PM
have you even read him?

No, I don't even think I've ever heard of him tbh. I was being purposely silly in calling him a dick, thought that would be obvious.

I'm sure he is very interesting but if he believes in any hard sense what VGF2K wrote about power then I'm afraid it does sound a lot like rubbish perhaps it isn't being explained well.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 04:28:36 PM
The question is whether you think politics should be defined as its own terms and practices, with its own kind of subjectivity and use of reason. Or whether you think politics doesn't have its own practices it just describes the imbalances of power within other kind of actions and there's nothing thats just politics on its own.

The former is traditionally the communist view, where political thinking doesn't need the legitimation of another mode of thinking other than work for equality itself being its own justification. The latter is the liberal view, that politics is entirely secondary to stuff like culture, society and economics, and it has to legitimate everything it does based on those fields that exercise a priority over politics.

It's not possible to seperate the question of power from the question of legitimation. Ultimately the political dispute can still said to be between socialist or Marxist politics which talk about acting on behalf of new subjects that don't need legitimacy beyond the desire for change, and liberal or liberal democratic politics which say the only valid subjects are those who are already legitimated by cultural or social differences.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 04:32:23 PM
Some examples of where you think different answers to that question have made a difference would be really interesting.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 04:34:56 PM
Quote from: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 04:32:23 PM
Some examples of where you think different answers to that question have made a difference would be really interesting.

That's why there is a problem of legitimation.

This is a problem with pragmatic or nominalist approaches to political ideas and theory: you're putting the cart before the horse. Supposing I listed a bunch of liberal policy changes at the early 1990s that I considered to be representative of what I'm saying, I'm not really saying anything about the historical events in question I'm just (trying and probably failing) to legitimate or validate my position. Political thinkers like Rancière often write in an axiomatic, speculative way without many real examples exactly because they want to avoid doing exactly this.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kankurette on September 06, 2021, 04:39:00 PM
Isn't it about fairness/justice rather than niceness? Massive oversimplification, I know.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 04:42:22 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 04:34:56 PM
That's why there is a problem of legitimation.
Very droll.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 06, 2021, 04:43:29 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 04:28:36 PM
The question is whether you think politics should be defined as its own terms and practices, with its own kind of subjectivity and use of reason. Or whether you think politics doesn't have its own practices it just describes the imbalances of power within other kind of actions and there's nothing thats just politics on its own.

Ok talk me through this;

Do I think politics should (so are we talking here that is the view of politics that it is the important thing here not politics itself) be defined as it's own terms and practices (is politics a set, self-contained thing? are its terms and practices consistent anyway; are there not different forms of political activism in the world; different from each other and therefore not quantifiable in this manner?), with it's own kind of subjectivity (politics, a none living concept, a word made up to to semantically encapsulate a complex relational phenomena, has it's own subjectivity - I don't believe it has).  Politics obviously has it's "own practices" but defining them so broadly as "practices" does not really help - it is not specific enough to answer the specificity of the questions asked of it.

Again I'm not really sure what you are saying.


Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 06, 2021, 04:44:04 PM
Quote from: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 04:32:23 PM
Some examples of where you think different answers to that question have made a difference would be really interesting.

what does that mean? is it that hard to find positive political events that have happened outside of parliamentery politics?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 04:47:27 PM
Apparently for some people.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 06, 2021, 04:48:21 PM
yeah for centrists i guess
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 04:50:27 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 06, 2021, 04:43:29 PM
Ok talk me through this;

Do I think politics should (so are we talking here that is the view of politics that it is the important thing here not politics itself) be defined as it's own terms and practices (is politics a set, self-contained thing? are its terms and practices consistent anyway; are there not different forms of political activism in the world; different from each other and therefore not quantifiable in this manner?), with it's own kind of subjectivity (politics, a none living concept, a word made up to to semantically encapsulate a complex relational phenomena, has it's own subjectivity - I don't believe it has).  Politics obviously has it's "own practices" but defining them so broadly as "practices" does not really help - it is not specific enough to answer the specificity of the questions asked of it.

Again I'm not really sure what you are saying.

Here's (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/32639) an extract from Rancière in question including what I paraphrased, even if you disagree with it its an interesting piece and worth reading the full ten theses if you can find them. I don't entirely agree with it either (for one Rancière is a strong historicist so I think that makes his position inherently contradictory). I just posted because its a great piece and a good argument against the two imperatives "return to pure politics" or "ignore politics, think only about power".

I think the best I can say is that there is something here that is beyond translation into English. Which is the idea that "power" doesn't just mean "the ability to do things" but implies its own legitimation, especially in politics or when talking about academic or research methodology. He's not saying that politics should not trying to acquire the means to accomplish what political subjects will, he's saying that is seperate from the idea of the exercise "power" as a wider legitimacy or a totalising, all encompassing abstraction (as in Foucault and Bourdieu)

QuoteWhat is proper to politics is thus lost at the outset if politics is thought of as a specific way of living. Politics cannot be defined on the basis of any pre-existing subject.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 06, 2021, 04:52:34 PM
you probably need some english equivalent of  the concept of 'police'. power is a bit too vague
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 04:54:36 PM
Quote from: chveik on September 06, 2021, 04:48:21 PM
yeah for centrists i guess
As both your and VGF's latest posts make clear, the term "power" was being construed in a particular fashion - arguably against actual English usage (apparently).

My personal experience - in my own political activities - of an emphasis on "power" has been overwhelmingly against parliamentary (or representative) politics and I don't really think falls under "centrism' (but perhaps I'm mistaken).

I'm asking for examples, because they might give a way in to jargon for people who don't already entirely agree with you. But perhaps this is also somehow distasteful for reasons I do not understand.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 04:56:07 PM
Like in the MLK quote, I don't think you can seperate how he spoke of "power" from theological ideas about spirit and redemption through good works and moving for liberation. Or communal action.

Help I'm doing historicism myself now
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 04:59:46 PM
Quote from: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 04:54:36 PM
As both your and VGF's latest posts make clear, the term "power" was being construed in a particular fashion - arguably against actual English usage (apparently).

Its a standard usage in sociology, history and many branches of political theory. Its not obscure jargon.

Nobody in standard English uses "has the power to" interchangeably with "is able to" surely?

Power is a word from philosophy and theology, its not something describing a particular entity in the world we can all agree on. Of course its abstact, it has no singular defintion and thats compounded by English being one of the few languages that only has one root word for almost all associated concepts.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 05:00:34 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 04:59:46 PM
Its a standard usage in sociology, history and many branches of political theory. Its not obscure jargon.
Well.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 06, 2021, 05:01:24 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 04:50:27 PM
Here's (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/32639) an extract from Rancière in question including what I paraphrased, even if you disagree with it its an interesting piece and worth reading the full ten theses if you can find them. I don't entirely agree with it either (for one Rancière is a strong historicist so I think that makes his position inherently contradictory). I just posted because its a great piece and a good argument against the two imperatives "return to pure politics" or "ignore politics, think only about power".

I think the best I can say is that there is something here that is beyond translation into English. Which is the idea that "power" doesn't just mean "the ability to do things" but implies its own legitimation, especially in politics or when talking about academic or research methodology. He's not saying that politics should not trying to acquire the means to accomplish what political subjects will, he's saying that is seperate from the idea of the exercise "power" as a wider legitimacy or a totalising, all encompassing abstraction (as in Foucault and Bourdieu)

Sure sure, but have you ever studied SNAP!?
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 05:04:31 PM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 04:59:46 PM
Nobody in standard English uses "has the power to" interchangeably with "is able to" surely?
I think the usual English usage is pretty close to that, albeit with a strong connotation of overcoming some opposing force or other's will.

I guess in the particular context of the here-and-now (apologies), and bringing this back to the subject of the thread, there's the use of the term with a strong alignment to the idea of "electability" and a particularly narrow view about the sort of rituals one must adopt if you want to be able to pass through the right gates and be able to do anything.

Which might be what you and chveik are pointing in the direction of as well, but I don't know.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 05:05:44 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 06, 2021, 05:01:24 PM
Sure sure, but have you ever studied SNAP!?

I try to stick to the Greyskull School
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 05:10:32 PM
Quote from: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 05:04:31 PM
I think the usual English usage is pretty close to that, albeit with a strong connotation of overcoming some opposing force or other's will.

Well, there you go. "Overcoming some opposing force", you let the Germans in now.

Quote
I guess in the particular context of the here-and-now (apologies), and bringing this back to the subject of the thread, there's the use of the term with a strong alignment to the idea of "electability" and a particularly narrow view about the sort of rituals one must adopt if you want to be able to pass through the right gates and be able to do anything.

Which might be what you and chveik are pointing in the direction of as well, but I don't know.

I don't want to speak for chveik, but for me the distinction is between thinking of political subjects as constituted by their political actions and will, as opposed to thinking of politics as never having its own subjects and reduced to advocating for subjects constituted by other life. Or, alternatively, thinking of politics as one specific way of life that you're either in or out of.

Think about the tautologies and bad-think induced by the idea that Labour should appeal to "traditional labour voters" or by the converse idea that Labour should reach demographics it usually doesn't. Both stand in opposition to generating new support based not on outreach and focus grouping but on policy ideas that people actually respond to, which doesn't fall into either bracket. (this is reductive but its also as specific/pragmatic as I like to get)
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 06, 2021, 05:21:37 PM
Quote from: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 05:04:31 PM
I guess in the particular context of the here-and-now (apologies), and bringing this back to the subject of the thread, there's the use of the term with a strong alignment to the idea of "electability" and a particularly narrow view about the sort of rituals one must adopt if you want to be able to pass through the right gates and be able to do anything.

i'm a bit confused now since we appear to be talking at cross purposes. i don't think we could do without representation at allbut in my mind it's the difference between this model of indeed electability where things can only change under the conditions that are given to us in a particular political system and an idea where the people can create for and by themselves new institutions, where a new political subject can emerge (like the tiers état during the french revolution or indigenous movements in south america). it's just about being against the idea that there can be 'professionals' of politics like any other human activity which is the basis of liberalism. it doesn't make much sense to obtain power if the material conditions of who can be an agent of politics remain the same.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: jamiefairlie on September 06, 2021, 05:32:16 PM
Power is the ability to have your decisions be carried out as you define them. Democracy as we have it is and always has been a veneer of power sharing that hides the concentration of actual power in the hands of a ruling elite. Revolutions have been able to tear down the existing power brokers but have inevitably just replaced them with a new elite class, see Animal Farm yada yada yada.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Zetetic on September 06, 2021, 06:25:13 PM
I'm grateful to both of you, chveik and VGF2000, for your last posts.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Johnny Yesno on September 06, 2021, 09:49:10 PM
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 06, 2021, 04:43:29 PM
Again I'm not really sure what you are saying.

I find myself saying this a lot to VGF2000. This is a good thing, apparently.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 06, 2021, 10:09:46 PM
Quote from: Johnny Yesno on September 06, 2021, 09:49:10 PM
I find myself saying this a lot to VGF2000. This is a good thing, apparently.

I think is mostly my failure though; I have no doubt VKF2K or Chviek is making an interesting point - this is the problem with discourse on forums; it is constrained and reduced so a lot of information is lost and hence why there is the need sometimes to simplify things.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 06, 2021, 10:23:48 PM
I hope you take a look at that Rancière, its difficult but he wrote that way because he broke with 1970s structural Marxism and came to consider the role of teaching as provocative rather than traditionally didactic. These post-68 scholars and philosophers broke with the tradition of taking examples and then generalising from them because their concern was with what wasn't and couldn't be integrated into traditional politics and philosophical rhetoric, can't be represented by any presently existing political class.

Maybe check out Jodi Dean, she's heavily influenced by him and talks about similiar issues but talks about specific contemporary issues and historical examples.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Zetetic on September 07, 2021, 12:27:21 AM
edit fuck
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: evilcommiedictator on September 07, 2021, 12:34:06 AM
This is a pretty good representation of how Centrists see themselves as stationary objects in this world, and how people who want change offend them (also for every 1,000,000 4chan posts there's one good one)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-nlAJlWYAMJqX5?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 07, 2021, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: Zetetic on September 07, 2021, 12:27:21 AM
edit fuck

should've made this my username
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 07, 2021, 12:37:15 AM
Quote from: evilcommiedictator on September 07, 2021, 12:34:06 AM
This is a pretty good representation of how Centrists see themselves as stationary objects in this world, and how people who want change offend them (also for every 1,000,000 4chan posts there's one good one)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-nlAJlWYAMJqX5?format=jpg&name=900x900)

Quoting this because I didn't want to roll it over with my last dumb post. Sorry!
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 07, 2021, 10:00:14 AM
It's been posted before and it's good; I said something similar in this thread earlier; however it is just a long way of saying "hand wringing liberals" with added Harry Potter.

To understand why liberals are hand wringing, why working class people are siding with a millionaire conman racists, why "left-wingers" are rejecting marxism for moral gesturing, why sizeable numbers of the public consistently vote against their own interests etc... you need to understand their psychology at both the individual and group level; philosophy cannot do this; it isn't equipped to do so, I love it, it's incredibly important in it's main goal "progression of thought" but it is limited in both real world application and even proving its assumptions.  It doesn't concern itself with the biology of the brain and the frankly outstanding amount of specialist work that have been carried out in the last 40 years in the area of child development, brain development communications theory, emotional regulation.

I've just got to get up a mountain but I'll explain how this contributes to "liberals" with practical examples when I get chance.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kankurette on September 09, 2021, 08:04:20 PM
Are any of you on r/stupidpol, just out of interest? I got recommended it. It's a bit anti-trans for me though.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 09, 2021, 08:07:06 PM
never heard of the cunts. can't stand reddit's layout anyway
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kankurette on September 09, 2021, 08:53:16 PM
It is an arsehole to navigate. I always use the old one.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on September 09, 2021, 08:59:32 PM
you can't even read threads properly with the new one unless you sign up/in.

then if you do, often you wish you hadn't bothered.

I don't go on much these days but like /r/enlightenedcentrism as a political pisstake, and /r/darkfuturology, /r/collapse when feeling bleak
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 09, 2021, 09:03:15 PM
If an asteroid smashed into the earth, r/stupidpol wouldn't even notice until either a 17 year old queer kid made a bad meme about or M&Ms referenced it in a cringy pride ad
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kankurette on September 10, 2021, 12:50:17 AM
I got linked to it as an example of leftists pushing back against wokeness and idpol. Trenter, they seem to be the kind of leftists others have talked about - they're pretty down on LGBT people.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Cold Meat Platter on September 10, 2021, 12:55:34 AM
Quote from: Kankurette on September 10, 2021, 12:50:17 AM
they seem to be the kind of leftists others have talked about - they're pretty down on LGBT people.

Not leftists then
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kankurette on September 10, 2021, 12:56:28 AM
Apparently having Pride in Jamaica is cultural hegemony or something.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 10, 2021, 12:57:11 AM
Quote from: Kankurette on September 10, 2021, 12:56:28 AM
Apparently having Pride in Jamaica is cultural hegemony or something.

they sound like wankers
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 10, 2021, 12:58:36 AM
The Jamaicans?

Not sticking up for Stupidpol but American liberals should be less head up arse about how their ideas are perceived worldwide.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 10, 2021, 01:09:56 AM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 10, 2021, 12:58:36 AM
The Jamaicans?

Not sticking up for Stupidpol but American liberals should be less head up arse about how their ideas are perceived worldwide.

nah the stupidpol lads. isn't pride a worldwide thing? i mean it doesn't really strike me as the wrong type of cultural imperialism
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: imitationleather on September 10, 2021, 01:14:53 AM
It's not the Greeks, it's the Jamaicans chveik's after!
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 10, 2021, 01:18:38 AM
Quote from: chveik on September 10, 2021, 01:09:56 AM
isn't pride a worldwide thing?

No. Sometimes its well funded and Anglophone and perceived to efface any local equivalents. Especially in places were acting like Stonewall was the begininng of the gay liberation movement is ahistorical absurdity. No idea if the Jamaican protest was about this or a populist movement, but I suppose populist is sadly more likely.

Either way it does little to change the impression of an enlightened empire trying lead backwards corners of the globe into its objectively true beliefs while exposing cultural relativism about every other set of values. If they were serious about promoting equality rather than some weird soft power thing they wouldn't act like this.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Cold Meat Platter on September 10, 2021, 01:24:30 AM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 10, 2021, 01:18:38 AM
No. Sometimes its well funded and Anglophone and perceived to efface any local equivalents. Especially in places were acting like Stonewall was the begininng of the gay liberation movement is ahistorical absurdity. No idea if the Jamaican protest was about this or a populist movement, but I suppose populist is sadly more likely.

Either way it does little to change the impression of an enlightened empire trying lead backwards corners of the globe into its objectively true beliefs while exposing cultural relativism about every other set of values.

Begging the question with your 'impression' there.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: canadagoose on September 10, 2021, 01:25:41 AM
Quote from: Kankurette on September 09, 2021, 08:04:20 PM
Are any of you on r/stupidpol, just out of interest? I got recommended it. It's a bit anti-trans for me though.
It's a load of shite. The sort of "leftists" that I don't like tend to go there.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: chveik on September 10, 2021, 01:30:23 AM
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 10, 2021, 01:18:38 AM
No. Sometimes its well funded and Anglophone and perceived to efface any local equivalents. Especially in places were acting like Stonewall was the begininng of the gay liberation movement is ahistorical absurdity. No idea if the Jamaican protest was about this or a populist movement, but I suppose populist is sadly more likely.

Either way it does little to change the impression of an enlightened empire trying lead backwards corners of the globe into its objectively true beliefs while exposing cultural relativism about every other set of values. If they were serious about promoting equality rather than some weird soft power thing they wouldn't act like this.

well i have no idea where that jamaican pride originated from so i can't really have an opinion on that. i do hate american liberals quite a lot obviously but i've seen more than enough time anti-idpol people making shit up
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 10, 2021, 01:32:28 AM
Quote from: Cold Meat Platter on September 10, 2021, 01:24:30 AM
Begging the question with your 'impression' there.

I mean, monocultural and heavy handed pinkwashing does hold a lot of the blame for populist candidates in a lot of countries because it gives them a windmill to tilt at while presenting old bigotries as something new and scary. Its easier to whip up rage about globalists than local groups. The EU is probably equally as bad but its American brands that get all the visibility/demonisation. 
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Video Game Fan 2000 on September 10, 2021, 01:35:32 AM
Quote from: chveik on September 10, 2021, 01:30:23 AM
well i have no idea where that jamaican pride originated from so i can't really have an opinion on that. i do hate american liberals quite a lot obviously but i've seen more than enough time anti-idpol people making shit up

I'm not an expert on the subject, but Jamaica has had notoriously bad anti-LGBT laws that used the same language and framing as colonisers used until fairly recently. They never had pride, they had their own gay liberations organisation which was a more militant thing than western orgs which is to be expected considering. I don't think they had anglo-style pride before the last few years.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kankurette on September 10, 2021, 03:45:29 AM
It does fuck me off a bit how so many young American queers act like Stonewall was the be-all and end-all of LGBT history and that no LGBT communities existed beforehand. And 'you have black trans sex workers to thank for Pride' referring to Marsha P Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, one of whom may not have even been at the riot, and acting like they singlehandedly invented it. I get not wanting to exclude trans people or black LGBT people but you end up going the other way and acting like gay men or lesbians had nothing to do with it. Stormé Delarverie is often forgotten.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 11, 2021, 10:03:53 AM
Quote from: Kankurette on September 10, 2021, 12:50:17 AM
I got linked to it as an example of leftists pushing back against wokeness and idpol. Trenter, they seem to be the kind of leftists others have talked about - they're pretty down on LGBT people.

Interesting. I don't really go on reddit so I'm not aware.  I've mentioned it before but I think the semi anonymous nature of the internet has caused a big problem as to how political groups can be perceived.

Astroturfing assumes organised agit-prop but you don't really need this as anyone with an interest in creating an impression of any political group.  Then of course there is the problem with people making poor representations of the left just by not being very good leftists.

We've even had people on CaB pretending to be things there are not just to get reactions.

Ps will check it out when I get back thanks for the heads up Kanks
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 12, 2021, 07:25:44 PM
Had a little look through stupidpol scrolled through he first 20-30 posts and and I have to be honest I didn't see anything that questionable.  I understand what is now though; a reddit that is critical of identity politics, not Marxist specifically.  As with all these things you'll get people being all or nothing but I was expecting to see much worse; it was all just standard critiques of typical identity politics issues with people at least seeming to discuss some of the issues.

Probably the iffiest for me was the something about people fighting the abortion ruling in Texas not using female pronouns which didn't really seem worth highlighting. I suppose there are some aspects here if not addressing cis women directly could reduce the reach and run the risk conflating the "trans-debate" with this particular issue (meh it seemed a bit unnecessary imo); I didn't really get the impression it was a massively toxic community from what I saw (though of course it is on reddit so it ultimately will be somewhere as you go down each thread.

Oh and using the picture of Rachel Dolezal in the header that can get fucked right off.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: Kankurette on September 12, 2021, 08:47:16 PM
Yeah, I did see the 'Rachel Dolezal is just like trans people' argument in there, it's one of the essays linked in the sidebar. Which explains the header. It's a common talking point on Mumsnet as well. I wish I had the words to explain why it isn't the same.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: the hum on September 12, 2021, 09:05:22 PM
Quote from: Cold Meat Platter on September 10, 2021, 12:55:34 AM
Not leftists then

"Post left", yer Glenn Greenwalds of this world. Types who gradually succumbed to internet brain worms post-2016, and unwittingly meshed with the IDW crowd. Closer to home you have the likes of Stuart Campbell, and the formation of the Alba party.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 12, 2021, 09:23:17 PM
Quote from: Kankurette on September 12, 2021, 08:47:16 PM
Yeah, I did see the 'Rachel Dolezal is just like trans people' argument in there, it's one of the essays linked in the sidebar. Which explains the header. It's a common talking point on Mumsnet as well. I wish I had the words to explain why it isn't the same.

Ah I didn't clock that (I don't really get Reddit all it's banners and stuff); I take it the argument is Dolezal self-identification is the same as some one identifying with a gender that is different from their sex at birth? If it is then that is not only a stupid but also a reductionist argument in itself.
Title: Re: Centrism
Post by: TrenterPercenter on September 12, 2021, 09:27:57 PM
Quote from: Kankurette on September 12, 2021, 08:47:16 PM
Yeah, I did see the 'Rachel Dolezal is just like trans people' argument in there, it's one of the essays linked in the sidebar. Which explains the header. It's a common talking point on Mumsnet as well. I wish I had the words to explain why it isn't the same.

Which one is it?