I would be happy in the mean time for more social democratic reform, wealth redistribution, empowerment of unions and individual workers and an increased social safety net. These are the things that would tackle the immediate problems that the "free market" are clearly making worse - inflation (to a degree, climate change will increase the scarcity of lots of essential resources), housing, poverty and malnourishment, etc.
Would you favour strengthening the bargaining power of workers by empowering unions to prevent companies from hiring outside labour?
Every single academic conference I go to is doom laden. There is deep deep worry in the academic community about where current trends are taking us....
So I teach on the MBA programme at a leading London business school. We visited a leading european car manufacurer this year... they had electrified one of their brands and sold thousand of cars they could not deliver... they had taken the money, but the copper, lithium, rare minerals and quality steel was in such short supply that it led to a crisis for the company. Anyway they were open about this. After I spoke to one of the top top execs of this firm and said: look out on the streets at the fleet of vehicles driving around. What is the likelihood of those being replaced 1:1 with electric or hydrogen by 2040 or 2050..... he said: "Nil... it isn't happening... mobility as we have known it since ww2 is going to become a luxury." I asked him what should be done.... he said "we have to redesign cities so the car isn't needed like today" 🤷
The consumption opportunities and level of material prosperity people have become accustomed to over the last 80 years is an aberration historical terms and it is about to drop away.
I am no sort of leftist, but if we look back eg 25 years to 1999, we were not exactly living on gruel and sending our children to school shoeless in the snow.
What the world needs is not for the rich world to get disproportionately richer, it is for the poorer world to catch up with the middling/richer world. The is essential not only because it is right, but also because there is no other way to stem the increasing flow of economic and political migrants.
The flow of migrants could be stemmed very easily if there were the political will to do it. You don't have to remake the world.
Perhaps you would let Chad, Uganda, Kenya, Germany, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, France, UK, USA and a few others into the secret.
Every single academic conference I go to is doom laden. There is deep deep worry in the academic community about where current trends are taking us....
So I teach on the MBA programme at a leading London business school. We visited a leading european car manufacurer this year... they had electrified one of their brands and sold thousand of cars they could not deliver... they had taken the money, but the copper, lithium, rare minerals and quality steel was in such short supply that it led to a crisis for the company. Anyway they were open about this. After I spoke to one of the top top execs of this firm and said: look out on the streets at the fleet of vehicles driving around. What is the likelihood of those being replaced 1:1 with electric or hydrogen by 2040 or 2050..... he said: "Nil... it isn't happening... mobility as we have known it since ww2 is going to become a luxury." I asked him what should be done.... he said "we have to redesign cities so the car isn't needed like today" 🤷
The consumption opportunities and level of material prosperity people have become accustomed to over the last 80 years is an aberration historical terms and it is about to drop away.
I am no sort of leftist, but if we look back eg 25 years to 1999, we were not exactly living on gruel and sending our children to school shoeless in the snow.
What the world needs is not for the rich world to get disproportionately richer, it is for the poorer world to catch up with the middling/richer world. The is essential not only because it is right, but also because there is no other way to stem the increasing flow of economic and political migrants.
The flow of migrants could be stemmed very easily if there were the political will to do it. You don't have to remake the world.
How? Short of state rebuilding and peacemaking in the countries currently undergoing turmoil (which are typically in turmoil due to the actions or incentives of the West) what can we do to reduce the number of migrants coming here?
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
But the entire force of capital, which includes the private media and the political establishment, go out of there way to make left wing policies solutions the equivalent of literal Stalinism whilst painting far right rhetoric as "common sense". The Overton window can only go one way for those people - it's the ratchet effect. So people seeing how impossible it is to get left wing solutions (and Corbyn is hardly far left, he proposed a social democratic policy platform that, when polled on issue by issue rather then as "Corbyn's policies", did have popular support) become disaffected and those who desire a far right solution get told it is always possible (because every party panders to them) and that when their policy preference is enacted and doesn't work that's because it wasn't done harshly enough and the answer is to go even more right wing.
"But the entire force of capital". You been at the Koolaid again? What is this 1875 and we are discussing the Communist Manifesto?
At heart most people like capitalism. What they want is for capitalism to be fair - so no unfair advantages of birth, of wealth etc. They want hard work rewarded.
What they don't want is bullshit economic theories about 'capital' and the 'politcal establishment' etc
Capitalism does not reward fairness or meritocracy - those things are not inherently capitalistic. The advantages of birth are backed into capitalism; inheritance whether in money or assets is the highest predictor of wealth later in life. People who work hard are not rewarded under capitalism. We recognised under Covid that their were such things as "essential workers" - who were they? Shop assistants, nurses, public servants and the like - are they the most well paid? Does a CEO or shareholder of a company work whatever ratio it has more than their lowest paid worker? Capitalism rewards those who help accumulate more capital for capitalists. To do otherwise is counter to capitalist mode of production.
So what is your solution then?
Hard work is rewarded - but yes every job comes with its own salary, and some of them are grossly unfair. And yet. Is it right for a CEO to earn millions? Maybe, if they can show that their input actual generates substantially more than that.
Should lower paid jobs be better paid? Yes - in an ideal world people would not need extra money from government if they are working a 37.5h week. But is it right that I earn more as a Uni lecturer than someone that works in retail? I bring a lifetime of experience of my subject to the role, you can be trained for a job on the tills and stacking shelves in days.
Capitalism cannot be left to run without check, for sure, but I have not seen a better arrangement suggested. What do you propose?
From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs - I do not see why profit motive is necessary or why the private mass accumulation of capital is acceptable. What that means practically? If you're in favour of a state that would mean, in part, state management of resources, workers councils who own the means of production, the seizing and redistribution of assets from the rich to the poor, etc. etc. If you're not in favour of a state (personally I'm not) you would do what the anarchists did in places like Spain at the outbreak of the civil war and what is happening in Rojava now; community and workers councils making democratic decisions about issues and deciding what to do and trade for themselves. Is this Utopian - yes, of course.
I would be happy in the mean time for more social democratic reform, wealth redistribution, empowerment of unions and individual workers and an increased social safety net. These are the things that would tackle the immediate problems that the "free market" are clearly making worse - inflation (to a degree, climate change will increase the scarcity of lots of essential resources), housing, poverty and malnourishment, etc.
I have zero problem with people having lots of money, particularly if they took risks to get it. My dad took major risks to set up his business, including potentially losing his home. The business he started employed dozens of people for decades. In return for that risk, he made a living that has kept him comfortable in retirement. What's wrong with that?
IMV a major issue is that acquiring capital has become split from risk: and too often, the risk is placed on the state, not on companies or organisations.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
But the entire force of capital, which includes the private media and the political establishment, go out of there way to make left wing policies solutions the equivalent of literal Stalinism whilst painting far right rhetoric as "common sense". The Overton window can only go one way for those people - it's the ratchet effect. So people seeing how impossible it is to get left wing solutions (and Corbyn is hardly far left, he proposed a social democratic policy platform that, when polled on issue by issue rather then as "Corbyn's policies", did have popular support) become disaffected and those who desire a far right solution get told it is always possible (because every party panders to them) and that when their policy preference is enacted and doesn't work that's because it wasn't done harshly enough and the answer is to go even more right wing.
"But the entire force of capital". You been at the Koolaid again? What is this 1875 and we are discussing the Communist Manifesto?
At heart most people like capitalism. What they want is for capitalism to be fair - so no unfair advantages of birth, of wealth etc. They want hard work rewarded.
What they don't want is bullshit economic theories about 'capital' and the 'politcal establishment' etc
Capitalism does not reward fairness or meritocracy - those things are not inherently capitalistic. The advantages of birth are backed into capitalism; inheritance whether in money or assets is the highest predictor of wealth later in life. People who work hard are not rewarded under capitalism. We recognised under Covid that their were such things as "essential workers" - who were they? Shop assistants, nurses, public servants and the like - are they the most well paid? Does a CEO or shareholder of a company work whatever ratio it has more than their lowest paid worker? Capitalism rewards those who help accumulate more capital for capitalists. To do otherwise is counter to capitalist mode of production.
So what is your solution then?
Hard work is rewarded - but yes every job comes with its own salary, and some of them are grossly unfair. And yet. Is it right for a CEO to earn millions? Maybe, if they can show that their input actual generates substantially more than that.
Should lower paid jobs be better paid? Yes - in an ideal world people would not need extra money from government if they are working a 37.5h week. But is it right that I earn more as a Uni lecturer than someone that works in retail? I bring a lifetime of experience of my subject to the role, you can be trained for a job on the tills and stacking shelves in days.
Capitalism cannot be left to run without check, for sure, but I have not seen a better arrangement suggested. What do you propose?
From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs - I do not see why profit motive is necessary or why the private mass accumulation of capital is acceptable. What that means practically? If you're in favour of a state that would mean, in part, state management of resources, workers councils who own the means of production, the seizing and redistribution of assets from the rich to the poor, etc. etc. If you're not in favour of a state (personally I'm not) you would do what the anarchists did in places like Spain at the outbreak of the civil war and what is happening in Rojava now; community and workers councils making democratic decisions about issues and deciding what to do and trade for themselves. Is this Utopian - yes, of course.
I would be happy in the mean time for more social democratic reform, wealth redistribution, empowerment of unions and individual workers and an increased social safety net. These are the things that would tackle the immediate problems that the "free market" are clearly making worse - inflation (to a degree, climate change will increase the scarcity of lots of essential resources), housing, poverty and malnourishment, etc.
"I do not see why profit motive is necessary or why the private mass accumulation of capital is acceptable."
Because HUMAN NATURE. Its how we are wired, I'm afraid. People want stuff. So you basically are an unapologetic communist. Are you Ash Sarkar? She of the luxury communism bent?
Every single academic conference I go to is doom laden. There is deep deep worry in the academic community about where current trends are taking us....
So I teach on the MBA programme at a leading London business school. We visited a leading european car manufacurer this year... they had electrified one of their brands and sold thousand of cars they could not deliver... they had taken the money, but the copper, lithium, rare minerals and quality steel was in such short supply that it led to a crisis for the company. Anyway they were open about this. After I spoke to one of the top top execs of this firm and said: look out on the streets at the fleet of vehicles driving around. What is the likelihood of those being replaced 1:1 with electric or hydrogen by 2040 or 2050..... he said: "Nil... it isn't happening... mobility as we have known it since ww2 is going to become a luxury." I asked him what should be done.... he said "we have to redesign cities so the car isn't needed like today" 🤷
The consumption opportunities and level of material prosperity people have become accustomed to over the last 80 years is an aberration historical terms and it is about to drop away.
I am no sort of leftist, but if we look back eg 25 years to 1999, we were not exactly living on gruel and sending our children to school shoeless in the snow.
What the world needs is not for the rich world to get disproportionately richer, it is for the poorer world to catch up with the middling/richer world. The is essential not only because it is right, but also because there is no other way to stem the increasing flow of economic and political migrants.
The flow of migrants could be stemmed very easily if there were the political will to do it. You don't have to remake the world.
Perhaps you would let Chad, Uganda, Kenya, Germany, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, France, UK, USA and a few others into the secret.
There's no secret. Look at the way Finland and Poland responded to Russia by sealing the border backed up by military force.
Have to say i am surprised the gap between the 2 Tory Parties have narrowed from 17 to 14 in a week
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK · 1h 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead narrows to fourteen points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 29% (+1) Lab 43% (-2) Lib Dem 10% (+1) Other 19% (+2) Fieldwork: 26th - 29th January 2024 Sample: 2,064 GB adults (Changes from 19th - 22nd January 2024)
Shit will be hugely lost when we have the first poll with both Labour and the Tories are in the 30's...
It will most likely be "an outlier"
Sure the SKS fans will say "nothing to see here...."!
Starmer has a fan?
My Tory majority of 20 now looking more comfortable with usual swingback.
You can good odds on that Pete
Sunil is an SKS fan even though he has opposing views on Gaza
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
Rob Galloway @DrRobgalloway · 3h I genuinely dont understand why there aren't mass demonstrations to save our NHS. The health of our families is the most important thing - and we are loosing our safety net
Have to say i am surprised the gap between the 2 Tory Parties have narrowed from 17 to 14 in a week
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK · 1h 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead narrows to fourteen points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 29% (+1) Lab 43% (-2) Lib Dem 10% (+1) Other 19% (+2) Fieldwork: 26th - 29th January 2024 Sample: 2,064 GB adults (Changes from 19th - 22nd January 2024)
Shit will be hugely lost when we have the first poll with both Labour and the Tories are in the 30's...
It will most likely be "an outlier"
Sure the SKS fans will say "nothing to see here...."!
Starmer has a fan?
My Tory majority of 20 now looking more comfortable with usual swingback.
Fun and games will happen when Labour gets to a point where it has no majority.
Interesting questions: "Who will you have a coalition with, Labour?"
I don't believe it will come to that. The Tories might have a fewer vote percentage points than Labour but a few dozen majorities of under 500 votes.
Every single academic conference I go to is doom laden. There is deep deep worry in the academic community about where current trends are taking us....
So I teach on the MBA programme at a leading London business school. We visited a leading european car manufacurer this year... they had electrified one of their brands and sold thousand of cars they could not deliver... they had taken the money, but the copper, lithium, rare minerals and quality steel was in such short supply that it led to a crisis for the company. Anyway they were open about this. After I spoke to one of the top top execs of this firm and said: look out on the streets at the fleet of vehicles driving around. What is the likelihood of those being replaced 1:1 with electric or hydrogen by 2040 or 2050..... he said: "Nil... it isn't happening... mobility as we have known it since ww2 is going to become a luxury." I asked him what should be done.... he said "we have to redesign cities so the car isn't needed like today" 🤷
The consumption opportunities and level of material prosperity people have become accustomed to over the last 80 years is an aberration historical terms and it is about to drop away.
I am no sort of leftist, but if we look back eg 25 years to 1999, we were not exactly living on gruel and sending our children to school shoeless in the snow.
What the world needs is not for the rich world to get disproportionately richer, it is for the poorer world to catch up with the middling/richer world. The is essential not only because it is right, but also because there is no other way to stem the increasing flow of economic and political migrants.
The flow of migrants could be stemmed very easily if there were the political will to do it. You don't have to remake the world.
How? Short of state rebuilding and peacemaking in the countries currently undergoing turmoil (which are typically in turmoil due to the actions or incentives of the West) what can we do to reduce the number of migrants coming here?
The two absolute priorities should be growing prosperity and the opportunity for decent lives (which don't have to resemble anyone else's) and a reasonable quality of peace seeking government where it is lacking. The UN is the obvious body to spearhead this.
Rob Galloway @DrRobgalloway · 3h I genuinely dont understand why there aren't mass demonstrations to save our NHS. The health of our families is the most important thing - and we are loosing our safety net
Have to say i am surprised the gap between the 2 Tory Parties have narrowed from 17 to 14 in a week
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK · 1h 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead narrows to fourteen points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 29% (+1) Lab 43% (-2) Lib Dem 10% (+1) Other 19% (+2) Fieldwork: 26th - 29th January 2024 Sample: 2,064 GB adults (Changes from 19th - 22nd January 2024)
Shit will be hugely lost when we have the first poll with both Labour and the Tories are in the 30's...
It will most likely be "an outlier"
Sure the SKS fans will say "nothing to see here...."!
Starmer has a fan?
My Tory majority of 20 now looking more comfortable with usual swingback.
You can good odds on that Pete
Sunil is an SKS fan even though he has opposing views on Gaza
Well done on limiting your booze intake so successfully
I am belatedly doing the same but hoping to find a medium course of still drinking at times but also having half the week entirely sober etc
Question: how do you cope with the boredom? That is what vexes me, still. Booze used to agreeably fill an evening. Now the hours stretch. Yes I read and go to the gym and watch movies and that’s nice but wow there is a lot of time to fill, nonetheless
Sometimes I just want to go to bed at 10pm even if I’m not tired because unconsciousness is less boring
I haven't had a drink since NYE, this is my fourth time doing Dry January. Since doing it the first time I've found the amount I drink has dropped without any real effort on my part, largely by not drinking in the house and not going to the pub as much. I love alcohol as a social drug but I was never one for nailing a load of cans in front of the TV like mates of mine can do. But even the glass or two of wine or glass of whisky at home has dwindled to virtually nothing. I've found that in my 40s the hangovers are now so bad and long-lasting I just don't go to the pub as much as I used to either. From being 17 to late-30s it was three/four times a week, probably drinking a gallon a time. Now, thanks to using a drink tracking app I started using for my first Dry Jan, I find I average ten days drinking a month, and most of those days are only one or two units. I love a proper sesh in the pub with my mates but it takes me two or three days to get over it. I can cope with the headache, it's the two or three days of lethargy and increasingly bad hangxiety that have curbed by pub visits.
So I have a lot more sober time these past few years. I love it. I read more - and more importantly, remember what I've read. I take longer, more frequent walks, which the dog appreciates. I try and go for a run a few times a week. I play the guitar - badly. I recently got into listening to podcasts. Plus there's always YouTube. I'm also considering whether I want to do a PhD part-time while working, but that way madness may well lie so I blow hot and cold with the notion.
But I'm very rarely bored. Not like you were on a rainy Sunday afternoon in the 80s when I was growing up and there was nothing on TV. That was proper boredom.
I go to bed when I'm tired, usually about 11 but two nights last week it was half 9. If that's boring, so be it - FOMO isn't a thing for me anymore!
I've also cut down on caffeine - I have two builders teas first thing them that's me. As I've hit middle age my body just can't deal with alcohol and caffeine like it did when I was younger. I hit it hard when I was young, I shovelled everything into me I could get my hands on, but I'm glad those days are behind me. I just can't do it now. Nor do I want to.
I wish I could go out on a Friday for a gallon without it wiping out my weekend, but sometimes you just wanna get pissed and talk rubbish with your mates, don't you? So I take the hit and the missus moaning at me for wasting my weekend...
That's a long-winded way of saying I enjoyed getting hammered when I was young, but I prefer a clear head now, and I always manage to keep myself amused.
Re the PhD. If it's on something you love doing then go for it, just choose your supervisors carefully. If you think one might be an arsehole, run a mile.* If you don't really really want to do it (just want everyone to call you Dr ) then just buy one online
If you do a PhD, it will be hell at some point, so you have to really want to do it. Probably more so part time as the hell bit will last longer - it will all last longer - and the "Oh shit I don't have time to get this wrapped up in time" feeling will be even more acute. But the sense of achievement from getting it finished is quite something.
*One of my supervisors was a complete Jeremy Hunt, so that spoiled things a bit. I wasn't sure about him in my interview; should have listened to my instincts. I'd still have done a PhD, just done it somewhere else with different people.
Thanks for that. I spoke to one of my old undergrad tutors before Xmas who's now a Prof and he said they'd be happy to have me back and he'd be happy to supervise, so that's all good. And he'll help me get a proposal together. I just don't know whether I want six years of it with, as you say, extended periods of hell. I am one of the world's greatest procrastinators so I know I would be doing everything last minute. I wrote the last 3000 words of my MA dissertation the day it had to be handed in, so I have form this area. I'm trying to be realistic about my faults!
It's the logistics too - a lot of the archives I'd need to bury myself in are down south and I'm up north.
Every single academic conference I go to is doom laden. There is deep deep worry in the academic community about where current trends are taking us....
So I teach on the MBA programme at a leading London business school. We visited a leading european car manufacurer this year... they had electrified one of their brands and sold thousand of cars they could not deliver... they had taken the money, but the copper, lithium, rare minerals and quality steel was in such short supply that it led to a crisis for the company. Anyway they were open about this. After I spoke to one of the top top execs of this firm and said: look out on the streets at the fleet of vehicles driving around. What is the likelihood of those being replaced 1:1 with electric or hydrogen by 2040 or 2050..... he said: "Nil... it isn't happening... mobility as we have known it since ww2 is going to become a luxury." I asked him what should be done.... he said "we have to redesign cities so the car isn't needed like today" 🤷
The consumption opportunities and level of material prosperity people have become accustomed to over the last 80 years is an aberration historical terms and it is about to drop away.
I am no sort of leftist, but if we look back eg 25 years to 1999, we were not exactly living on gruel and sending our children to school shoeless in the snow.
What the world needs is not for the rich world to get disproportionately richer, it is for the poorer world to catch up with the middling/richer world. The is essential not only because it is right, but also because there is no other way to stem the increasing flow of economic and political migrants.
The flow of migrants could be stemmed very easily if there were the political will to do it. You don't have to remake the world.
How? Short of state rebuilding and peacemaking in the countries currently undergoing turmoil (which are typically in turmoil due to the actions or incentives of the West) what can we do to reduce the number of migrants coming here?
We can't rebuild there states, as it would be interfering, and all too often we're told to keep our noses out of other countries' business. Only the people there can rebuild states, and we can only help if they ask, and if the movers and shakers in those countries don't steal vast amounts of the aid; something that does f-all to help the common person.
For the record, I'm in favour of International Aid. But I don't want it wasting.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
But the entire force of capital, which includes the private media and the political establishment, go out of there way to make left wing policies solutions the equivalent of literal Stalinism whilst painting far right rhetoric as "common sense". The Overton window can only go one way for those people - it's the ratchet effect. So people seeing how impossible it is to get left wing solutions (and Corbyn is hardly far left, he proposed a social democratic policy platform that, when polled on issue by issue rather then as "Corbyn's policies", did have popular support) become disaffected and those who desire a far right solution get told it is always possible (because every party panders to them) and that when their policy preference is enacted and doesn't work that's because it wasn't done harshly enough and the answer is to go even more right wing.
"But the entire force of capital". You been at the Koolaid again? What is this 1875 and we are discussing the Communist Manifesto?
At heart most people like capitalism. What they want is for capitalism to be fair - so no unfair advantages of birth, of wealth etc. They want hard work rewarded.
What they don't want is bullshit economic theories about 'capital' and the 'politcal establishment' etc
Capitalism does not reward fairness or meritocracy - those things are not inherently capitalistic. The advantages of birth are backed into capitalism; inheritance whether in money or assets is the highest predictor of wealth later in life. People who work hard are not rewarded under capitalism. We recognised under Covid that their were such things as "essential workers" - who were they? Shop assistants, nurses, public servants and the like - are they the most well paid? Does a CEO or shareholder of a company work whatever ratio it has more than their lowest paid worker? Capitalism rewards those who help accumulate more capital for capitalists. To do otherwise is counter to capitalist mode of production.
So what is your solution then?
Hard work is rewarded - but yes every job comes with its own salary, and some of them are grossly unfair. And yet. Is it right for a CEO to earn millions? Maybe, if they can show that their input actual generates substantially more than that.
Should lower paid jobs be better paid? Yes - in an ideal world people would not need extra money from government if they are working a 37.5h week. But is it right that I earn more as a Uni lecturer than someone that works in retail? I bring a lifetime of experience of my subject to the role, you can be trained for a job on the tills and stacking shelves in days.
Capitalism cannot be left to run without check, for sure, but I have not seen a better arrangement suggested. What do you propose?
.
I would be happy in the mean time for more social democratic reform, wealth redistribution, empowerment of unions and individual workers and an increased social safety net. These are the things that would tackle the immediate problems that the "free market" are clearly making worse - inflation (to a degree, climate change will increase the scarcity of lots of essential resources), housing, poverty and malnourishment, etc.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Every single academic conference I go to is doom laden. There is deep deep worry in the academic community about where current trends are taking us....
So I teach on the MBA programme at a leading London business school. We visited a leading european car manufacurer this year... they had electrified one of their brands and sold thousand of cars they could not deliver... they had taken the money, but the copper, lithium, rare minerals and quality steel was in such short supply that it led to a crisis for the company. Anyway they were open about this. After I spoke to one of the top top execs of this firm and said: look out on the streets at the fleet of vehicles driving around. What is the likelihood of those being replaced 1:1 with electric or hydrogen by 2040 or 2050..... he said: "Nil... it isn't happening... mobility as we have known it since ww2 is going to become a luxury." I asked him what should be done.... he said "we have to redesign cities so the car isn't needed like today" 🤷
The consumption opportunities and level of material prosperity people have become accustomed to over the last 80 years is an aberration historical terms and it is about to drop away.
I am no sort of leftist, but if we look back eg 25 years to 1999, we were not exactly living on gruel and sending our children to school shoeless in the snow.
What the world needs is not for the rich world to get disproportionately richer, it is for the poorer world to catch up with the middling/richer world. The is essential not only because it is right, but also because there is no other way to stem the increasing flow of economic and political migrants.
The flow of migrants could be stemmed very easily if there were the political will to do it. You don't have to remake the world.
How? Short of state rebuilding and peacemaking in the countries currently undergoing turmoil (which are typically in turmoil due to the actions or incentives of the West) what can we do to reduce the number of migrants coming here?
The two absolute priorities should be growing prosperity and the opportunity for decent lives (which don't have to resemble anyone else's) and a reasonable quality of peace seeking government where it is lacking. The UN is the obvious body to spearhead this.
That would require wealth redistribution or increased costs of goods in the West (many conflicts essentially boil down to the fact that the consumer goods Westerners want either have components or are completely made in these countries and do not want to pay the value of the labour to give people comfortable lives, or that rich people either in those countries or via multinational organisations own the means of production and want their profit).
It would also require international agreement on what the purpose of peace should even be - as we see with Israel Palestine to the West and Israel peace is the complete displacement of Palestinians from Gaza and Israeli resettling the land with their own people, whereas the UN and many in the global South argue for a two state solution and mutual recognition.
These things will not happen - at least not whilst a rightwing frame work of the world is dominant - because they challenge capital and Western geopolitical hegemony.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
The idea that the far right is having its fascistic policies implemented by UK governments on inward migration (record levels), trans rights (moderate policies in place), and compulsory capitalism (the state manages about half of all expenditure in the UK), is nonsense.
Have to say i am surprised the gap between the 2 Tory Parties have narrowed from 17 to 14 in a week
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK · 1h 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead narrows to fourteen points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 29% (+1) Lab 43% (-2) Lib Dem 10% (+1) Other 19% (+2) Fieldwork: 26th - 29th January 2024 Sample: 2,064 GB adults (Changes from 19th - 22nd January 2024)
Shit will be hugely lost when we have the first poll with both Labour and the Tories are in the 30's...
It will most likely be "an outlier"
Sure the SKS fans will say "nothing to see here...."!
Starmer has a fan?
My Tory majority of 20 now looking more comfortable with usual swingback.
You can good odds on that Pete
Sunil is an SKS fan even though he has opposing views on Gaza
I had 12/1. It's even better value now.
I think I got about 4/1 on NOM again slightly better still available
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
It is utterly delusional to think that you are currently living under a far right regime. On the issues that you care about, the current government is to the left of New Labour.
A quite interesting piece on the starting day of the Edinburgh pavement parking ban (which is full of holes).
The sharp case is on a street on the grid between the coast and the high street in Portobello, Regent Street. The carriageway is ~6.2m wide; wall to wall is ~8.7m wide; ie ~1.25m footways.
The two edge cases are:
'If we want to park both sides, and leave room for vehicles to drive through, we have to park on the pavements.'
and
'If the pavements are blocked like this both sides, I won't leave my house because I would have to wheel my wheelchair down the carriageway."
Pavements are not constructed to bear the weight of vehicles, especially large or commercial ones. the resulting damage to paving slabs, wearing courses, displaced kerbs is often considerable.
Well done on limiting your booze intake so successfully
I am belatedly doing the same but hoping to find a medium course of still drinking at times but also having half the week entirely sober etc
Question: how do you cope with the boredom? That is what vexes me, still. Booze used to agreeably fill an evening. Now the hours stretch. Yes I read and go to the gym and watch movies and that’s nice but wow there is a lot of time to fill, nonetheless
Sometimes I just want to go to bed at 10pm even if I’m not tired because unconsciousness is less boring
As I said I think this is where fake booze comes in. The beer and gins are great, the wines are revolting. And the ritual of pouring myself a gin goes some way to helping.
As for the drunkenness, the clarity of thought which precedes the first (alcoholic) drink of the day can be special and productive. So I kid myself that when I'm not drinking I am perceptive and acute, whether that perception and acuity is engaged in watching Netflix or, finally, finishing off The Mirror & The Light, or doing the washing up.
That first light-headed euphoria after a first drink, meanwhile, is accentuated if I have not been drinking for a few days so I look forward to that while also try to avoid being a "weekend binger".
Useful, thanks
I don't think I can bring myself to drink fake booze; something in my soul would cry out in despair
It would be like knowingly taking fake heroin that has no effect, what's the damn point? I enjoy the sensation of drinking, the flavours of wine - to an extent - but my main purpose is some form of intoxication
I am getting quite a lot of work done, however, and all my affairs are very much in order - there is a notable gain in efficiency, from greater sobriety
Dont rule out the benefits of fake booze.I quit the booze a couple of years ago because I was on high strength painkillers for a trapped nerve and couldn't drink. Once I was off the pain meds, I realised I liked not having a mild hangover a few days a week. Fake booze has been a game changer for me. All my mates drink, so I still get to go out with them, but don't have to sit nursing an orange juice all night. And as Topping says, zero alcohol beer and gin brands are really good. Guinness is superb. So are Brewdog, and even brands like Corona and Heineken are more than acceptable. Wines are all a bit shite, but there is a brand called Not Guilty that isn't the worst tasting fake booze I've had.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
What do you define as Far Right? UKIP, for instance? Far Right is surely a full on fascist party. There is nothing of that ilk in the UK (the BNP are no more...)
Rob Galloway @DrRobgalloway · 3h I genuinely dont understand why there aren't mass demonstrations to save our NHS. The health of our families is the most important thing - and we are loosing our safety net
There have been - policy didn't change. The anti-austerity marches got tens of thousands of people out on the streets. Austerity continued.
Did it? Austerity was a slogan, not an actuality. Labour's plans were deeper. NHS spending rose (albeit not relative spending, but it was hardly savage cuts).
Savanta Opinium Techne Delta Poll and More in Common
Highest Labour leads
You Gov We Think
In the middle
Redfield and Wilton Strategies Ipsos
Do we know why we are consistently getting mid teen leads from 1st group and Mid to high 20s from 2nd group?
Group 1 have either swing back built into them or a spiral of silence filter which reallocates some Don’t Knows back to the party they voted for in 2019. 2019 Tories have a high DK figure.
Group 2 have different methodologies, for example reallocating some Tory voters who say they will vote Tory but prefer Starmer over Sunak/Labour policies in the supplementary questions.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
The idea that the far right is having its fascistic policies implemented by UK governments on inward migration (record levels), trans rights (moderate policies in place), and compulsory capitalism (the state manages about half of all expenditure in the UK), is nonsense.
We have no legal routes for migrants at the border to claim asylum. Our state is saying that we are going to send asylum seekers to Rwanda to claim for asylum. It has been noted that much of the policy positions in the BNP 2005 manifesto, at the height of their influence, are now mainstream policy from both major parties. Recent government guidance on trans children in education, for example, have been compared to section 28 - not only harming trans children, but essentially forcing adult educators to closet themselves because their identity could be a "risk" to students. And state resources are going into private hands - it may "manage" the expenditure, but much of that expenditure instead of going on service improvements will go towards profit making. Whilst public services are being cut, more and more parts of the social safety net are outsourced to private companies doing it "on behalf" of the government and taking a slice off the top.
Every single academic conference I go to is doom laden. There is deep deep worry in the academic community about where current trends are taking us....
So I teach on the MBA programme at a leading London business school. We visited a leading european car manufacurer this year... they had electrified one of their brands and sold thousand of cars they could not deliver... they had taken the money, but the copper, lithium, rare minerals and quality steel was in such short supply that it led to a crisis for the company. Anyway they were open about this. After I spoke to one of the top top execs of this firm and said: look out on the streets at the fleet of vehicles driving around. What is the likelihood of those being replaced 1:1 with electric or hydrogen by 2040 or 2050..... he said: "Nil... it isn't happening... mobility as we have known it since ww2 is going to become a luxury." I asked him what should be done.... he said "we have to redesign cities so the car isn't needed like today" 🤷
The consumption opportunities and level of material prosperity people have become accustomed to over the last 80 years is an aberration historical terms and it is about to drop away.
Of course it is - it was based on the voracious burning of fossil fuels (that were unsustainable) and the capitalist model of squeezing maximum profit from labour (something that was regulated by the social state through wealth redistribution, and now is unregulated so the profit motive is in full control).
Even beyond these trends, you have the reality of climate change making our food security future... pretty bleak
Capitalism is irrelevant. You can't have 8 billion people living western lifestyles without needing to use a lot of energy, no matter who owns the means of production.
The more inequality there is, the greater is the GDP required for everyone to have enough to get by. Capitalism is relevant since it acts on both sides of the equation, fostering inequality as well as GDP. A key question in coming to an Ofsted style good/bad assessment of capitalism is which of these outweighs the other.
In recent days, Mr. Biden has moved key advisers from the White House to strengthen his re-election team: Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, the hard-charging, battle-tested manager of Mr. Biden’s winning 2020 race, and Mike Donilon, the president’s chief strategist, have joined the campaign. This move comes not a moment too soon.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
It's an old conversation on here, but what's your definition of 'fascist'? Because it seems to be quite wide; perhaps as wide as: "anyone on the right I disagree with."
Whereas your own politics seems to be Communist; and Communists tend to have an uncomfortable amount in common with fascists, such as dictatorial leaders, autocratic governments, suppression of opposition etc. I know modern-day Communists say that next time it will be different, but for some reason I'm not keen on the experiment.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
It is utterly delusional to think that you are currently living under a far right regime. On the issues that you care about, the current government is to the left of New Labour.
On what policy has this government tacked to the left on? Even some of the redistributive measures (such as the money towards energy bills during the inflationary crisis, or Covid measures) were enacted to a) protect the companies and b) prevent complete societal breakdown - and energy prices are still continuing up and up! Are we even looking at the same goddamn country?
Have to say i am surprised the gap between the 2 Tory Parties have narrowed from 17 to 14 in a week
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK · 1h 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead narrows to fourteen points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 29% (+1) Lab 43% (-2) Lib Dem 10% (+1) Other 19% (+2) Fieldwork: 26th - 29th January 2024 Sample: 2,064 GB adults (Changes from 19th - 22nd January 2024)
Have to say i am surprised the gap between the 2 Tory Parties have narrowed from 17 to 14 in a week
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK · 1h 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead narrows to fourteen points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 29% (+1) Lab 43% (-2) Lib Dem 10% (+1) Other 19% (+2) Fieldwork: 26th - 29th January 2024 Sample: 2,064 GB adults (Changes from 19th - 22nd January 2024)
Shit will be hugely lost when we have the first poll with both Labour and the Tories are in the 30's...
It will most likely be "an outlier"
Sure the SKS fans will say "nothing to see here...."!
Starmer has a fan?
My Tory majority of 20 now looking more comfortable with usual swingback.
You can good odds on that Pete
Sunil is an SKS fan even though he has opposing views on Gaza
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
The idea that the far right is having its fascistic policies implemented by UK governments on inward migration (record levels), trans rights (moderate policies in place), and compulsory capitalism (the state manages about half of all expenditure in the UK), is nonsense.
We have no legal routes for migrants at the border to claim asylum. Our state is saying that we are going to send asylum seekers to Rwanda to claim for asylum. It has been noted that much of the policy positions in the BNP 2005 manifesto, at the height of their influence, are now mainstream policy from both major parties. Recent government guidance on trans children in education, for example, have been compared to section 28 - not only harming trans children, but essentially forcing adult educators to closet themselves because their identity could be a "risk" to students. And state resources are going into private hands - it may "manage" the expenditure, but much of that expenditure instead of going on service improvements will go towards profit making. Whilst public services are being cut, more and more parts of the social safety net are outsourced to private companies doing it "on behalf" of the government and taking a slice off the top.
What I see is a very big, very intrusive, very highly taxing, and very redistributive state.
Rob Galloway @DrRobgalloway · 3h I genuinely dont understand why there aren't mass demonstrations to save our NHS. The health of our families is the most important thing - and we are loosing our safety net
There have been - policy didn't change. The anti-austerity marches got tens of thousands of people out on the streets. Austerity continued.
Did it? Austerity was a slogan, not an actuality. Labour's plans were deeper. NHS spending rose (albeit not relative spending, but it was hardly savage cuts).
It was a slogan and an actuality. Most areas other than the NHS were squeezed bigtime.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
It is utterly delusional to think that you are currently living under a far right regime. On the issues that you care about, the current government is to the left of New Labour.
On what policy has this government tacked to the left on? Even some of the redistributive measures (such as the money towards energy bills during the inflationary crisis, or Covid measures) were enacted to a) protect the companies and b) prevent complete societal breakdown - and energy prices are still continuing up and up! Are we even looking at the same goddamn country?
It depends how you define left, but if you think that being pro-immigration is left wing, then the last 13 years of Tory government have been the most tranformative in British history, and not towards the right.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
It's an old conversation on here, but what's your definition of 'fascist'? Because it seems to be quite wide; perhaps as wide as: "anyone on the right I disagree with."
Whereas your own politics seems to be Communist; and Communists tend to have an uncomfortable amount in common with fascists, such as dictatorial leaders, autocratic governments, suppression of opposition etc. I know modern-day Communists say that next time it will be different, but for some reason I'm not keen on the experiment.
I use Umberto Eco's definition of fascism, which I have said many times before:
I consider myself an anarchist, but I would accept libertarian communist (who were the original libertarians, by the way). I would prefer there not to be states, and no vanguard within the party, and a democracy of the workers etc.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
In case anyone's forgotten, the context for the "march on the Cenotaph" was that they intended to defend it from vandalism that was at that point being attempted on a weekly basis by pro-Palestinian marchers.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
It is utterly delusional to think that you are currently living under a far right regime. On the issues that you care about, the current government is to the left of New Labour.
On what policy has this government tacked to the left on? Even some of the redistributive measures (such as the money towards energy bills during the inflationary crisis, or Covid measures) were enacted to a) protect the companies and b) prevent complete societal breakdown - and energy prices are still continuing up and up! Are we even looking at the same goddamn country?
(a) is mainly in the eye of the beholder. It protected a lot of people through the winter. And as for prices going up and up, Cornwall Energy Insights forecast it to be coming down in the near future.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
It's an old conversation on here, but what's your definition of 'fascist'? Because it seems to be quite wide; perhaps as wide as: "anyone on the right I disagree with."
Whereas your own politics seems to be Communist; and Communists tend to have an uncomfortable amount in common with fascists, such as dictatorial leaders, autocratic governments, suppression of opposition etc. I know modern-day Communists say that next time it will be different, but for some reason I'm not keen on the experiment.
I use Umberto Eco's definition of fascism, which I have said many times before:
I consider myself an anarchist, but I would accept libertarian communist (who were the original libertarians, by the way). I would prefer there not to be states, and no vanguard within the party, and a democracy of the workers etc.
Despite your ideological protestations, in practice you are really just a neoliberal who believes in open borders first, second and last.
Meloni started dropping a few months ago but is still an illustration that being politically astute really helps - even if you do nothing that you promised! Schulz and Sunak show what happens if you are not politically astute. Trudeau and Macron have outstayed their welcome. No US President will be near positive due to hyper-partisanship. Sanchez is doing well considering his recent press. Albanese has perhaps learned (too late) not to do a Cameron by calling a referendum you don't need to call.
I'm not sure India or Mexico are that safe places to criticise the dear leader.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
Tommeh is an Israel stan now, surely that means it’s impossible for him to be fashy far right, right?
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
It is utterly delusional to think that you are currently living under a far right regime. On the issues that you care about, the current government is to the left of New Labour.
On what policy has this government tacked to the left on? Even some of the redistributive measures (such as the money towards energy bills during the inflationary crisis, or Covid measures) were enacted to a) protect the companies and b) prevent complete societal breakdown - and energy prices are still continuing up and up! Are we even looking at the same goddamn country?
I'd argue that socially, we're far to the left of perhaps even Labour governments in the 1970s. There's no talk of homosexuality being banned, we have politicians of many different ethnic backgrounds (and perhaps even social backgrounds as well), the state is becoming slowly decoupled from religion, and freedom of religion has never been higher. We've come a massive way over the last few decades.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
It's an old conversation on here, but what's your definition of 'fascist'? Because it seems to be quite wide; perhaps as wide as: "anyone on the right I disagree with."
Whereas your own politics seems to be Communist; and Communists tend to have an uncomfortable amount in common with fascists, such as dictatorial leaders, autocratic governments, suppression of opposition etc. I know modern-day Communists say that next time it will be different, but for some reason I'm not keen on the experiment.
I use Umberto Eco's definition of fascism, which I have said many times before:
I consider myself an anarchist, but I would accept libertarian communist (who were the original libertarians, by the way). I would prefer there not to be states, and no vanguard within the party, and a democracy of the workers etc.
Despite your ideological protestations, in practice you are really just a neoliberal who believes in open borders first, second and last.
I mean, I do not agree with capitalism, which is what neoliberalism is about reinforcing. And I go beyond neoliberals on borders (again, as I don't like the existence of states) - not just open borders, but no borders.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
Tommeh is an Israel stan now, surely that means it’s impossible for him to be fashy far right?
Nick Griffin is pro Palestine.
You can never tell who the far right hate the most.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
It's an old conversation on here, but what's your definition of 'fascist'? Because it seems to be quite wide; perhaps as wide as: "anyone on the right I disagree with."
Whereas your own politics seems to be Communist; and Communists tend to have an uncomfortable amount in common with fascists, such as dictatorial leaders, autocratic governments, suppression of opposition etc. I know modern-day Communists say that next time it will be different, but for some reason I'm not keen on the experiment.
I use Umberto Eco's definition of fascism, which I have said many times before:
I consider myself an anarchist, but I would accept libertarian communist (who were the original libertarians, by the way). I would prefer there not to be states, and no vanguard within the party, and a democracy of the workers etc.
Despite your ideological protestations, in practice you are really just a neoliberal who believes in open borders first, second and last.
I mean, I do not agree with capitalism, which is what neoliberalism is about reinforcing. And I go beyond neoliberals on borders (again, as I don't like the existence of states) - not just open borders, but no borders.
And who will you call when another anarchist comes to your house to take your goods? Who will keep the peace? Who will provide the hopsital care? Who will teach you children?
Have to say i am surprised the gap between the 2 Tory Parties have narrowed from 17 to 14 in a week
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK · 1h 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead narrows to fourteen points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 29% (+1) Lab 43% (-2) Lib Dem 10% (+1) Other 19% (+2) Fieldwork: 26th - 29th January 2024 Sample: 2,064 GB adults (Changes from 19th - 22nd January 2024)
Shit will be hugely lost when we have the first poll with both Labour and the Tories are in the 30's...
It will most likely be "an outlier"
Sure the SKS fans will say "nothing to see here...."!
Starmer has a fan?
My Tory majority of 20 now looking more comfortable with usual swingback.
You can good odds on that Pete
Sunil is an SKS fan even though he has opposing views on Gaza
What does that mean?
That Israel does have the right to cut off water in Gaza as per SKS
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
It's an old conversation on here, but what's your definition of 'fascist'? Because it seems to be quite wide; perhaps as wide as: "anyone on the right I disagree with."
Whereas your own politics seems to be Communist; and Communists tend to have an uncomfortable amount in common with fascists, such as dictatorial leaders, autocratic governments, suppression of opposition etc. I know modern-day Communists say that next time it will be different, but for some reason I'm not keen on the experiment.
I use Umberto Eco's definition of fascism, which I have said many times before:
I consider myself an anarchist, but I would accept libertarian communist (who were the original libertarians, by the way). I would prefer there not to be states, and no vanguard within the party, and a democracy of the workers etc.
Despite your ideological protestations, in practice you are really just a neoliberal who believes in open borders first, second and last.
I mean, I do not agree with capitalism, which is what neoliberalism is about reinforcing. And I go beyond neoliberals on borders (again, as I don't like the existence of states) - not just open borders, but no borders.
How do you reconcile your own life with your view of how society operates at present? You can't seriously believe that you are toiling away while the fruits of your labour are used to create obscene profits for capitalists.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
Tommeh is an Israel stan now, surely that means it’s impossible for him to be fashy far right, right?
Tommy's a sh*t, but I must say I do agree with that placard: "Free Gaza from Hamas".
I'd argue that anyone who wants the best for Palestinians would agree. Rid Gaza of Hamas, and Israel of Likud., and we might get adults talking about peace.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
It is utterly delusional to think that you are currently living under a far right regime. On the issues that you care about, the current government is to the left of New Labour.
On what policy has this government tacked to the left on? Even some of the redistributive measures (such as the money towards energy bills during the inflationary crisis, or Covid measures) were enacted to a) protect the companies and b) prevent complete societal breakdown - and energy prices are still continuing up and up! Are we even looking at the same goddamn country?
I'd argue that socially, we're far to the left of perhaps even Labour governments in the 1970s. There's no talk of homosexuality being banned, we have politicians of many different ethnic backgrounds (and perhaps even social backgrounds as well), the state is becoming slowly decoupled from religion, and freedom of religion has never been higher. We've come a massive way over the last few decades.
Violent attacks on LGBTQ+ people have been climbing year on year for over a decade. Racist dogwhistles have turned into racist foghorns and into policy - the Windrush Scandal, the "Go Home" vans, the "let people die in the Channel" calls from politicians. We had government ministers talking at a "National Conservative" conference decrying the woke left and calling for a return to "family, faith and flag". And we have poverty exploding at a time of booming profits. How can you look at all this and go "well, this is the outcome of the left winning?". You are all actually making me feel insane - you are telling me to ignore the evidence of my eyes and go with the "feeling" that the left are winning because capital has appropriated the language of feminism and multiculturalism for its aims.
Meloni started dropping a few months ago but is still an illustration that being politically astute really helps - even if you do nothing that you promised! Schulz and Sunak show what happens if you are not politically astute. Trudeau and Macron have outstayed their welcome. No US President will be near positive due to hyper-partisanship. Sanchez is doing well considering his recent press. Albanese has perhaps learned (too late) not to do a Cameron by calling a referendum you don't need to call.
I'm not sure India or Mexico are that safe places to criticise the dear leader.
Meloni is the only one of them with a clear poll lead still, even Albanese is only neck and neck with the opposition now and Sanchez of course came second behind the PP on votes and seats at the last election in Spain even if he could cobble together another coalition government
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
Tommeh is an Israel stan now, surely that means it’s impossible for him to be fashy far right?
Nick Griffin is pro Palestine.
You can never tell who the far right hate the most.
Griffin’s positions on Israel are all over the place depending on what he calculated was best for his brand of politics (evidence suggests that he’s not much of a calculator). Naming his pet pigs Anne and Frank was probably the best indicator of his true views.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
Tommeh is an Israel stan now, surely that means it’s impossible for him to be fashy far right, right?
Tommy's a sh*t, but I must say I do agree with that placard: "Free Gaza from Hamas".
I'd argue that anyone who wants the best for Palestinians would agree. Rid Gaza of Hamas, and Israel of Likud., and we might get adults talking about peace.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
It's an old conversation on here, but what's your definition of 'fascist'? Because it seems to be quite wide; perhaps as wide as: "anyone on the right I disagree with."
Whereas your own politics seems to be Communist; and Communists tend to have an uncomfortable amount in common with fascists, such as dictatorial leaders, autocratic governments, suppression of opposition etc. I know modern-day Communists say that next time it will be different, but for some reason I'm not keen on the experiment.
I use Umberto Eco's definition of fascism, which I have said many times before:
I consider myself an anarchist, but I would accept libertarian communist (who were the original libertarians, by the way). I would prefer there not to be states, and no vanguard within the party, and a democracy of the workers etc.
Despite your ideological protestations, in practice you are really just a neoliberal who believes in open borders first, second and last.
I mean, I do not agree with capitalism, which is what neoliberalism is about reinforcing. And I go beyond neoliberals on borders (again, as I don't like the existence of states) - not just open borders, but no borders.
How do you reconcile your own life with your view of how society operates at present? You can't seriously believe that you are toiling away while the fruits of your labour are used to create obscene profits for capitalists.
I work in the a weird sector (Higher Education), but I believe the value of my labour is not represented by my earnings and that the earnings of others who earn more don't represent their labour. VC pay, for example, has nothing to do with the work they do - it has to do with the fact they have facilitated the degradation of HE institutions and enforce the goals of capital onto the workers (lecturers, administrators and, indeed, students) for their benefit.
Take lecturing at a uni - it used to be considered a cushy job. Get your contract, research some esoteric stuff, teach students who don't turn up and gain tenure and stop caring about what you say out loud because you can say what you want. If you go into lecturing today, more often then not, you are given the equivalent of a zero-hour contract (contracted as a "visiting lecturer") where you accrue no rights, a shit pension and no job stability - your research has to be profit making and, more often then not, needs to be funded privately. Hence the push towards STEM and away from the Arts - capital likes STEM subjects (and needs STEM development), less so for the arts.
My daughter's state sixth form college got more Oxbridge offers than Eton this year.
Eton restricts the number of applicants it puts forward. Whether that is or isn't meritocratic is another issue but Oxbridge won't take more than one Etonian per college.
Well done on limiting your booze intake so successfully
I am belatedly doing the same but hoping to find a medium course of still drinking at times but also having half the week entirely sober etc
Question: how do you cope with the boredom? That is what vexes me, still. Booze used to agreeably fill an evening. Now the hours stretch. Yes I read and go to the gym and watch movies and that’s nice but wow there is a lot of time to fill, nonetheless
Sometimes I just want to go to bed at 10pm even if I’m not tired because unconsciousness is less boring
This is indeed the main challenge with reducing one's drinking. I have the same problem.
Yep
Iam lucky that I do creative work that I really enjoy, as a job - so I can expand that generally, and it pays, of course
Still leaves quite a few hours spare, however
I just don't get "hobbies" - don't grasp the idea. Or maybe my hobbies are simply things I can't do sitting around at home - travel, exploring, etc
I do like cooking, and following quite technical recipes (is that a "hobby"?); but I am still in weight loss/regular fasting mode, so even that is off the list, for now
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
Tommeh is an Israel stan now, surely that means it’s impossible for him to be fashy far right?
Nick Griffin is pro Palestine.
You can never tell who the far right hate the most.
Griffin’s positions on Israel are all over the place depending on what he calculated was best for his brand of politics (evidence suggests that he’s not much of a calculator). Naming his pet pigs Anne and Frank was probably the best indicator of his true views.
I wonder way David Irving stands?
Probably denying the October 7th attacks ever happened is my guess.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
The idea that the far right is having its fascistic policies implemented by UK governments on inward migration (record levels), trans rights (moderate policies in place), and compulsory capitalism (the state manages about half of all expenditure in the UK), is nonsense.
We have no legal routes for migrants at the border to claim asylum. Our state is saying that we are going to send asylum seekers to Rwanda to claim for asylum. It has been noted that much of the policy positions in the BNP 2005 manifesto, at the height of their influence, are now mainstream policy from both major parties. Recent government guidance on trans children in education, for example, have been compared to section 28 - not only harming trans children, but essentially forcing adult educators to closet themselves because their identity could be a "risk" to students. And state resources are going into private hands - it may "manage" the expenditure, but much of that expenditure instead of going on service improvements will go towards profit making. Whilst public services are being cut, more and more parts of the social safety net are outsourced to private companies doing it "on behalf" of the government and taking a slice off the top.
Yes, the government has a deterrence policy, which I don't agree with. But the crucial thing about asylum seekers is that it does not return them to their home country without due process. I am also opposed to the Rwanda policy, but even this is an attempt at a lawful policy (which I hope will fail in the HoL or the SC).
The basic right of any asylum seeker is a tent in the desert with three meals a day and return to their own country when circumstances allow. Have a look at Chad or Bangladesh.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
It's an old conversation on here, but what's your definition of 'fascist'? Because it seems to be quite wide; perhaps as wide as: "anyone on the right I disagree with."
Whereas your own politics seems to be Communist; and Communists tend to have an uncomfortable amount in common with fascists, such as dictatorial leaders, autocratic governments, suppression of opposition etc. I know modern-day Communists say that next time it will be different, but for some reason I'm not keen on the experiment.
I use Umberto Eco's definition of fascism, which I have said many times before:
I consider myself an anarchist, but I would accept libertarian communist (who were the original libertarians, by the way). I would prefer there not to be states, and no vanguard within the party, and a democracy of the workers etc.
Despite your ideological protestations, in practice you are really just a neoliberal who believes in open borders first, second and last.
I mean, I do not agree with capitalism, which is what neoliberalism is about reinforcing. And I go beyond neoliberals on borders (again, as I don't like the existence of states) - not just open borders, but no borders.
How do you reconcile your own life with your view of how society operates at present? You can't seriously believe that you are toiling away while the fruits of your labour are used to create obscene profits for capitalists.
I work in the a weird sector (Higher Education), but I believe the value of my labour is not represented by my earnings and that the earnings of others who earn more don't represent their labour. VC pay, for example, has nothing to do with the work they do - it has to do with the fact they have facilitated the degradation of HE institutions and enforce the goals of capital onto the workers (lecturers, administrators and, indeed, students) for their benefit.
Take lecturing at a uni - it used to be considered a cushy job. Get your contract, research some esoteric stuff, teach students who don't turn up and gain tenure and stop caring about what you say out loud because you can say what you want. If you go into lecturing today, more often then not, you are given the equivalent of a zero-hour contract (contracted as a "visiting lecturer") where you accrue no rights, a shit pension and no job stability - your research has to be profit making and, more often then not, needs to be funded privately. Hence the push towards STEM and away from the Arts - capital likes STEM subjects (and needs STEM development), less so for the arts.
"I believe the value of my labour is not represented by my earnings"
Hopefully you mean that you think that you are overpaid, for example relative to the people who work in the factory that made the device you are typing on?
Rob Galloway @DrRobgalloway · 3h I genuinely dont understand why there aren't mass demonstrations to save our NHS. The health of our families is the most important thing - and we are loosing our safety net
I think most of us start from a position that healthcare provision in the country should be and deserves to be better, though the NHS in large part does an admirable job in very difficult circumstances.
Where it gets complicated is that we all have different opinions as to how we fix it.
Starting from the point where we stop deifying our NHS would be helpful. We need to stop looking at the current way our healthcare is delivered as a sacred cow. You can still hold true to the basic guiding principle of not preventing access to healthcare on the basis of wealth, without treating the whole system as beyond criticism.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
Tommeh is an Israel stan now, surely that means it’s impossible for him to be fashy far right, right?
Hasn't everyone on here (would have been you also if your hangover had abated by then) been saying this morning that all the poor, benighted population of Gaza, the ordinary decent citizens minding their own business there want is to, er, as the banner behind Mr Robinson says: "free Gaza from Hamas"?
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
It is utterly delusional to think that you are currently living under a far right regime. On the issues that you care about, the current government is to the left of New Labour.
On what policy has this government tacked to the left on? Even some of the redistributive measures (such as the money towards energy bills during the inflationary crisis, or Covid measures) were enacted to a) protect the companies and b) prevent complete societal breakdown - and energy prices are still continuing up and up! Are we even looking at the same goddamn country?
I'd argue that socially, we're far to the left of perhaps even Labour governments in the 1970s. There's no talk of homosexuality being banned, we have politicians of many different ethnic backgrounds (and perhaps even social backgrounds as well), the state is becoming slowly decoupled from religion, and freedom of religion has never been higher. We've come a massive way over the last few decades.
Sadly, that is utter nonsense (I wish you were correct, in most respects)
The UK state like several other western states, is now enforcing a de facto blasphemy law to protect Islam. There is a teacher from Batley in hiding, and has been for three years, and probably will be for the rest of his life - because of this. Does the UKG do anything to take on the people who have forced him into hiding? No, it does not
Meanwhile Denmark has brought in a law to prohibit the burning of the Koran (and other texts, but we all know why the new law exists)
In free speech we are regressing, there are many other ways we are falling back; we have imported people who do not share modern western values, they are slowly making us conform to their values. And still we import them
We are having a very productive day at work, and as the resident Grammar Nazi I have been dragged into this debate.
You’re at a bar and you want to order 3 Grey Goose drinks, do you tell the bar staff
1) I want three shots of Grey Goose
2) I want three shots of Grey Geese
3) I want a flock of Vodka
Number one would be correct. 'Grey Goose' is a mass term (as opposed to a count noun) so shouldn't really be pluralized. In the same way you shouldn't say 'I want three glasses of wines' but 'I want three glasses of wine'.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
Tommeh is an Israel stan now, surely that means it’s impossible for him to be fashy far right?
Nick Griffin is pro Palestine.
You can never tell who the far right hate the most.
Griffin’s positions on Israel are all over the place depending on what he calculated was best for his brand of politics (evidence suggests that he’s not much of a calculator). Naming his pet pigs Anne and Frank was probably the best indicator of his true views.
The organisers of the pro-Israel march went to some lengths to stop Robinson attending.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
Tommeh is an Israel stan now, surely that means it’s impossible for him to be fashy far right?
Nick Griffin is pro Palestine.
You can never tell who the far right hate the most.
Griffin’s positions on Israel are all over the place depending on what he calculated was best for his brand of politics (evidence suggests that he’s not much of a calculator). Naming his pet pigs Anne and Frank was probably the best indicator of his true views.
The organisers of the pro-Israel march went to some lengths to stop Robinson attending.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
Tommeh is an Israel stan now, surely that means it’s impossible for him to be fashy far right?
Nick Griffin is pro Palestine.
You can never tell who the far right hate the most.
Griffin’s positions on Israel are all over the place depending on what he calculated was best for his brand of politics (evidence suggests that he’s not much of a calculator). Naming his pet pigs Anne and Frank was probably the best indicator of his true views.
The organisers of the pro-Israel march went to some lengths to stop Robinson attending.
That the pro-Israel types don't adopt the my enemy's enemy is my friend. It started with you saying how Robinson couldn't be a fascist because he supported Israel and I am explaining to you that if you are saying that is a line adopted by, say, the pro-Israel group, then you are mistaken. As usual.
My daughter's state sixth form college got more Oxbridge offers than Eton this year.
Eton restricts the number of applicants it puts forward. Whether that is or isn't meritocratic is another issue but Oxbridge won't take more than one Etonian per college.
They also, like other public schools, have since my day not just looked at Oxbridge as the be all and end all and have always pushed pupils to the best university for the course they intended to do. Often it was Ox or Cam but not always and so large numbers would go to LSE, UCL, Imperial for examples.
There has also been a big shift in the last ten years or more where a large number are going to Ivy League universities as not only do they have global cachet but they also offer financial incentives to attract bright students and don’t have the same hang ups about public schoolboys and their privileges.
Well done on limiting your booze intake so successfully
I am belatedly doing the same but hoping to find a medium course of still drinking at times but also having half the week entirely sober etc
Question: how do you cope with the boredom? That is what vexes me, still. Booze used to agreeably fill an evening. Now the hours stretch. Yes I read and go to the gym and watch movies and that’s nice but wow there is a lot of time to fill, nonetheless
Sometimes I just want to go to bed at 10pm even if I’m not tired because unconsciousness is less boring
I haven't had a drink since NYE, this is my fourth time doing Dry January. Since doing it the first time I've found the amount I drink has dropped without any real effort on my part, largely by not drinking in the house and not going to the pub as much. I love alcohol as a social drug but I was never one for nailing a load of cans in front of the TV like mates of mine can do. But even the glass or two of wine or glass of whisky at home has dwindled to virtually nothing. I've found that in my 40s the hangovers are now so bad and long-lasting I just don't go to the pub as much as I used to either. From being 17 to late-30s it was three/four times a week, probably drinking a gallon a time. Now, thanks to using a drink tracking app I started using for my first Dry Jan, I find I average ten days drinking a month, and most of those days are only one or two units. I love a proper sesh in the pub with my mates but it takes me two or three days to get over it. I can cope with the headache, it's the two or three days of lethargy and increasingly bad hangxiety that have curbed by pub visits.
So I have a lot more sober time these past few years. I love it. I read more - and more importantly, remember what I've read. I take longer, more frequent walks, which the dog appreciates. I try and go for a run a few times a week. I play the guitar - badly. I recently got into listening to podcasts. Plus there's always YouTube. I'm also considering whether I want to do a PhD part-time while working, but that way madness may well lie so I blow hot and cold with the notion.
But I'm very rarely bored. Not like you were on a rainy Sunday afternoon in the 80s when I was growing up and there was nothing on TV. That was proper boredom.
I go to bed when I'm tired, usually about 11 but two nights last week it was half 9. If that's boring, so be it - FOMO isn't a thing for me anymore!
I've also cut down on caffeine - I have two builders teas first thing them that's me. As I've hit middle age my body just can't deal with alcohol and caffeine like it did when I was younger. I hit it hard when I was young, I shovelled everything into me I could get my hands on, but I'm glad those days are behind me. I just can't do it now. Nor do I want to.
I wish I could go out on a Friday for a gallon without it wiping out my weekend, but sometimes you just wanna get pissed and talk rubbish with your mates, don't you? So I take the hit and the missus moaning at me for wasting my weekend...
That's a long-winded way of saying I enjoyed getting hammered when I was young, but I prefer a clear head now, and I always manage to keep myself amused.
Re the PhD. If it's on something you love doing then go for it, just choose your supervisors carefully. If you think one might be an arsehole, run a mile.* If you don't really really want to do it (just want everyone to call you Dr ) then just buy one online
If you do a PhD, it will be hell at some point, so you have to really want to do it. Probably more so part time as the hell bit will last longer - it will all last longer - and the "Oh shit I don't have time to get this wrapped up in time" feeling will be even more acute. But the sense of achievement from getting it finished is quite something.
*One of my supervisors was a complete Jeremy Hunt, so that spoiled things a bit. I wasn't sure about him in my interview; should have listened to my instincts. I'd still have done a PhD, just done it somewhere else with different people.
Thanks for that. I spoke to one of my old undergrad tutors before Xmas who's now a Prof and he said they'd be happy to have me back and he'd be happy to supervise, so that's all good. And he'll help me get a proposal together. I just don't know whether I want six years of it with, as you say, extended periods of hell. I am one of the world's greatest procrastinators so I know I would be doing everything last minute. I wrote the last 3000 words of my MA dissertation the day it had to be handed in, so I have form this area. I'm trying to be realistic about my faults!
It's the logistics too - a lot of the archives I'd need to bury myself in are down south and I'm up north.
I have a friend who is on course to complete a history dissertation in three years.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
Tommeh is an Israel stan now, surely that means it’s impossible for him to be fashy far right?
Nick Griffin is pro Palestine.
You can never tell who the far right hate the most.
Griffin’s positions on Israel are all over the place depending on what he calculated was best for his brand of politics (evidence suggests that he’s not much of a calculator). Naming his pet pigs Anne and Frank was probably the best indicator of his true views.
The organisers of the pro-Israel march went to some lengths to stop Robinson attending.
That the pro-Israel types don't adopt the my enemy's enemy is my friend. It started with you saying how Robinson couldn't be a fascist because he supported Israel and I am explaining to you that if you are saying that is a line adopted by, say, the pro-Israel group, then you are mistaken. As usual.
After replying to the wrong post, explaining why the words you put in my mouth are wrong, excellent.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
It's an old conversation on here, but what's your definition of 'fascist'? Because it seems to be quite wide; perhaps as wide as: "anyone on the right I disagree with."
Whereas your own politics seems to be Communist; and Communists tend to have an uncomfortable amount in common with fascists, such as dictatorial leaders, autocratic governments, suppression of opposition etc. I know modern-day Communists say that next time it will be different, but for some reason I'm not keen on the experiment.
I use Umberto Eco's definition of fascism, which I have said many times before:
I consider myself an anarchist, but I would accept libertarian communist (who were the original libertarians, by the way). I would prefer there not to be states, and no vanguard within the party, and a democracy of the workers etc.
Despite your ideological protestations, in practice you are really just a neoliberal who believes in open borders first, second and last.
I mean, I do not agree with capitalism, which is what neoliberalism is about reinforcing. And I go beyond neoliberals on borders (again, as I don't like the existence of states) - not just open borders, but no borders.
How do you reconcile your own life with your view of how society operates at present? You can't seriously believe that you are toiling away while the fruits of your labour are used to create obscene profits for capitalists.
I work in the a weird sector (Higher Education), but I believe the value of my labour is not represented by my earnings and that the earnings of others who earn more don't represent their labour. VC pay, for example, has nothing to do with the work they do - it has to do with the fact they have facilitated the degradation of HE institutions and enforce the goals of capital onto the workers (lecturers, administrators and, indeed, students) for their benefit.
Take lecturing at a uni - it used to be considered a cushy job. Get your contract, research some esoteric stuff, teach students who don't turn up and gain tenure and stop caring about what you say out loud because you can say what you want. If you go into lecturing today, more often then not, you are given the equivalent of a zero-hour contract (contracted as a "visiting lecturer") where you accrue no rights, a shit pension and no job stability - your research has to be profit making and, more often then not, needs to be funded privately. Hence the push towards STEM and away from the Arts - capital likes STEM subjects (and needs STEM development), less so for the arts.
"I believe the value of my labour is not represented by my earnings"
Hopefully you mean that you think that you are overpaid, for example relative to the people who work in the factory that made the device you are typing on?
Last time I checked I was in the lower half of median individual income (I think I was around the 35% mark) in the UK; I just happen to have circumstances that allow me to have a good standard of living on that income without living with my parents like many other people my age have to do (my mother passing away when I was a child and her life insurance creating a mortgage less house I can live in as an adult).
As for in the global context - yeah, lots of people should be paid way more and more than myself for manual labour and such.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
Tommeh is an Israel stan now, surely that means it’s impossible for him to be fashy far right?
Nick Griffin is pro Palestine.
You can never tell who the far right hate the most.
Griffin’s positions on Israel are all over the place depending on what he calculated was best for his brand of politics (evidence suggests that he’s not much of a calculator). Naming his pet pigs Anne and Frank was probably the best indicator of his true views.
The organisers of the pro-Israel march went to some lengths to stop Robinson attending.
That the pro-Israel types don't adopt the my enemy's enemy is my friend. It started with you saying how Robinson couldn't be a fascist because he supported Israel and I am explaining to you that if you are saying that is a line adopted by, say, the pro-Israel group, then you are mistaken. As usual.
After replying to the wrong post, explaining why the words you put in my mouth are wrong, excellent.
No bigger bore than a bore on his hobby horse.
2/10 attempt at wriggling out of being caught out.
Well done on limiting your booze intake so successfully
I am belatedly doing the same but hoping to find a medium course of still drinking at times but also having half the week entirely sober etc
Question: how do you cope with the boredom? That is what vexes me, still. Booze used to agreeably fill an evening. Now the hours stretch. Yes I read and go to the gym and watch movies and that’s nice but wow there is a lot of time to fill, nonetheless
Sometimes I just want to go to bed at 10pm even if I’m not tired because unconsciousness is less boring
This is indeed the main challenge with reducing one's drinking. I have the same problem.
Yep
Iam lucky that I do creative work that I really enjoy, as a job - so I can expand that generally, and it pays, of course
Still leaves quite a few hours spare, however
I just don't get "hobbies" - don't grasp the idea. Or maybe my hobbies are simply things I can't do sitting around at home - travel, exploring, etc
I do like cooking, and following quite technical recipes (is that a "hobby"?); but I am still in weight loss/regular fasting mode, so even that is off the list, for now
EEEEK. I shall eat half a smuggled gummy bear
You have to learn to embrace boredom for a certain amount of time. Fishing, golf, and Buddhist meditation are all about that.
My daughter's state sixth form college got more Oxbridge offers than Eton this year.
Eton restricts the number of applicants it puts forward. Whether that is or isn't meritocratic is another issue but Oxbridge won't take more than one Etonian per college.
Also increasingly Oxbridge and other top universities demand higher grades from private school pupils
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
It's an old conversation on here, but what's your definition of 'fascist'? Because it seems to be quite wide; perhaps as wide as: "anyone on the right I disagree with."
Whereas your own politics seems to be Communist; and Communists tend to have an uncomfortable amount in common with fascists, such as dictatorial leaders, autocratic governments, suppression of opposition etc. I know modern-day Communists say that next time it will be different, but for some reason I'm not keen on the experiment.
I use Umberto Eco's definition of fascism, which I have said many times before:
I consider myself an anarchist, but I would accept libertarian communist (who were the original libertarians, by the way). I would prefer there not to be states, and no vanguard within the party, and a democracy of the workers etc.
Despite your ideological protestations, in practice you are really just a neoliberal who believes in open borders first, second and last.
I mean, I do not agree with capitalism, which is what neoliberalism is about reinforcing. And I go beyond neoliberals on borders (again, as I don't like the existence of states) - not just open borders, but no borders.
How do you reconcile your own life with your view of how society operates at present? You can't seriously believe that you are toiling away while the fruits of your labour are used to create obscene profits for capitalists.
I work in the a weird sector (Higher Education), but I believe the value of my labour is not represented by my earnings and that the earnings of others who earn more don't represent their labour. VC pay, for example, has nothing to do with the work they do - it has to do with the fact they have facilitated the degradation of HE institutions and enforce the goals of capital onto the workers (lecturers, administrators and, indeed, students) for their benefit.
Take lecturing at a uni - it used to be considered a cushy job. Get your contract, research some esoteric stuff, teach students who don't turn up and gain tenure and stop caring about what you say out loud because you can say what you want. If you go into lecturing today, more often then not, you are given the equivalent of a zero-hour contract (contracted as a "visiting lecturer") where you accrue no rights, a shit pension and no job stability - your research has to be profit making and, more often then not, needs to be funded privately. Hence the push towards STEM and away from the Arts - capital likes STEM subjects (and needs STEM development), less so for the arts.
Though of course even arts students have to pay fees now, so the courses have a non taxpayer income even if no commercial sponsorship at all. Those fees could of course rise too if lecturers and academics want higher pay
We are having a very productive day at work, and as the resident Grammar Nazi I have been dragged into this debate.
You’re at a bar and you want to order 3 Grey Goose drinks, do you tell the bar staff
1) I want three shots of Grey Goose
2) I want three shots of Grey Geese
3) I want a flock of Vodka
Number one would be correct. 'Grey Goose' is a mass term (as opposed to a count noun) so shouldn't really be pluralized. In the same way you shouldn't say 'I want three glasses of wines' but 'I want three glasses of wine'.
If we remove "shots of" I think it becomes less clear. "I want 3 Grey Geese" or "I want 3 Grey Goose"? Normal usage probably makes it plural - analogous to "I want 3 Stellas" or "2 Chardonnays please".
Every single academic conference I go to is doom laden. There is deep deep worry in the academic community about where current trends are taking us....
So I teach on the MBA programme at a leading London business school. We visited a leading european car manufacurer this year... they had electrified one of their brands and sold thousand of cars they could not deliver... they had taken the money, but the copper, lithium, rare minerals and quality steel was in such short supply that it led to a crisis for the company. Anyway they were open about this. After I spoke to one of the top top execs of this firm and said: look out on the streets at the fleet of vehicles driving around. What is the likelihood of those being replaced 1:1 with electric or hydrogen by 2040 or 2050..... he said: "Nil... it isn't happening... mobility as we have known it since ww2 is going to become a luxury." I asked him what should be done.... he said "we have to redesign cities so the car isn't needed like today" 🤷
The consumption opportunities and level of material prosperity people have become accustomed to over the last 80 years is an aberration historical terms and it is about to drop away.
I am no sort of leftist, but if we look back eg 25 years to 1999, we were not exactly living on gruel and sending our children to school shoeless in the snow.
What the world needs is not for the rich world to get disproportionately richer, it is for the poorer world to catch up with the middling/richer world. The is essential not only because it is right, but also because there is no other way to stem the increasing flow of economic and political migrants.
The flow of migrants could be stemmed very easily if there were the political will to do it. You don't have to remake the world.
How? Short of state rebuilding and peacemaking in the countries currently undergoing turmoil (which are typically in turmoil due to the actions or incentives of the West) what can we do to reduce the number of migrants coming here?
Most migration to the UK is not because of ongoing turmoil. It's student, work and family visas for people from the EU, India, Pakistan, Nigeria and China. We do have some immigration from countries currently undergoing turmoil: most of that is from Ukraine (due to the actions of Russia, not the West) and Hong Kong (due to the actions of China, not the West).
We are having a very productive day at work, and as the resident Grammar Nazi I have been dragged into this debate.
You’re at a bar and you want to order 3 Grey Goose drinks, do you tell the bar staff
1) I want three shots of Grey Goose
2) I want three shots of Grey Geese
3) I want a flock of Vodka
Number one would be correct. 'Grey Goose' is a mass term (as opposed to a count noun) so shouldn't really be pluralized. In the same way you shouldn't say 'I want three glasses of wines' but 'I want three glasses of wine'.
Well done on limiting your booze intake so successfully
I am belatedly doing the same but hoping to find a medium course of still drinking at times but also having half the week entirely sober etc
Question: how do you cope with the boredom? That is what vexes me, still. Booze used to agreeably fill an evening. Now the hours stretch. Yes I read and go to the gym and watch movies and that’s nice but wow there is a lot of time to fill, nonetheless
Sometimes I just want to go to bed at 10pm even if I’m not tired because unconsciousness is less boring
This is indeed the main challenge with reducing one's drinking. I have the same problem.
Yep
Iam lucky that I do creative work that I really enjoy, as a job - so I can expand that generally, and it pays, of course
Still leaves quite a few hours spare, however
I just don't get "hobbies" - don't grasp the idea. Or maybe my hobbies are simply things I can't do sitting around at home - travel, exploring, etc
I do like cooking, and following quite technical recipes (is that a "hobby"?); but I am still in weight loss/regular fasting mode, so even that is off the list, for now
EEEEK. I shall eat half a smuggled gummy bear
You have to learn to embrace boredom for a certain amount of time. Fishing, golf, and Buddhist meditation are all about that.
A wise statement
Boredom is something I have struggled with all my life....
We are having a very productive day at work, and as the resident Grammar Nazi I have been dragged into this debate.
You’re at a bar and you want to order 3 Grey Goose drinks, do you tell the bar staff
1) I want three shots of Grey Goose
2) I want three shots of Grey Geese
3) I want a flock of Vodka
Number one would be correct. 'Grey Goose' is a mass term (as opposed to a count noun) so shouldn't really be pluralized. In the same way you shouldn't say 'I want three glasses of wines' but 'I want three glasses of wine'.
If we remove "shots of" I think it becomes less clear. "I want 3 Grey Geese" or "I want 3 Grey Goose"? Normal usage probably makes it plural - analogous to "I want 3 Stellas" or "2 Chardonnays please".
Yes, 'I want three beers' etc. has become current but is grammatically questionable. In the same way you can say 'I bought three rugs' but shouldn't really say 'I bought three carpets'.
Well done on limiting your booze intake so successfully
I am belatedly doing the same but hoping to find a medium course of still drinking at times but also having half the week entirely sober etc
Question: how do you cope with the boredom? That is what vexes me, still. Booze used to agreeably fill an evening. Now the hours stretch. Yes I read and go to the gym and watch movies and that’s nice but wow there is a lot of time to fill, nonetheless
Sometimes I just want to go to bed at 10pm even if I’m not tired because unconsciousness is less boring
I haven't had a drink since NYE, this is my fourth time doing Dry January. Since doing it the first time I've found the amount I drink has dropped without any real effort on my part, largely by not drinking in the house and not going to the pub as much. I love alcohol as a social drug but I was never one for nailing a load of cans in front of the TV like mates of mine can do. But even the glass or two of wine or glass of whisky at home has dwindled to virtually nothing. I've found that in my 40s the hangovers are now so bad and long-lasting I just don't go to the pub as much as I used to either. From being 17 to late-30s it was three/four times a week, probably drinking a gallon a time. Now, thanks to using a drink tracking app I started using for my first Dry Jan, I find I average ten days drinking a month, and most of those days are only one or two units. I love a proper sesh in the pub with my mates but it takes me two or three days to get over it. I can cope with the headache, it's the two or three days of lethargy and increasingly bad hangxiety that have curbed by pub visits.
So I have a lot more sober time these past few years. I love it. I read more - and more importantly, remember what I've read. I take longer, more frequent walks, which the dog appreciates. I try and go for a run a few times a week. I play the guitar - badly. I recently got into listening to podcasts. Plus there's always YouTube. I'm also considering whether I want to do a PhD part-time while working, but that way madness may well lie so I blow hot and cold with the notion.
But I'm very rarely bored. Not like you were on a rainy Sunday afternoon in the 80s when I was growing up and there was nothing on TV. That was proper boredom.
I go to bed when I'm tired, usually about 11 but two nights last week it was half 9. If that's boring, so be it - FOMO isn't a thing for me anymore!
I've also cut down on caffeine - I have two builders teas first thing them that's me. As I've hit middle age my body just can't deal with alcohol and caffeine like it did when I was younger. I hit it hard when I was young, I shovelled everything into me I could get my hands on, but I'm glad those days are behind me. I just can't do it now. Nor do I want to.
I wish I could go out on a Friday for a gallon without it wiping out my weekend, but sometimes you just wanna get pissed and talk rubbish with your mates, don't you? So I take the hit and the missus moaning at me for wasting my weekend...
That's a long-winded way of saying I enjoyed getting hammered when I was young, but I prefer a clear head now, and I always manage to keep myself amused.
Re the PhD. If it's on something you love doing then go for it, just choose your supervisors carefully. If you think one might be an arsehole, run a mile.* If you don't really really want to do it (just want everyone to call you Dr ) then just buy one online
If you do a PhD, it will be hell at some point, so you have to really want to do it. Probably more so part time as the hell bit will last longer - it will all last longer - and the "Oh shit I don't have time to get this wrapped up in time" feeling will be even more acute. But the sense of achievement from getting it finished is quite something.
*One of my supervisors was a complete Jeremy Hunt, so that spoiled things a bit. I wasn't sure about him in my interview; should have listened to my instincts. I'd still have done a PhD, just done it somewhere else with different people.
Thanks for that. I spoke to one of my old undergrad tutors before Xmas who's now a Prof and he said they'd be happy to have me back and he'd be happy to supervise, so that's all good. And he'll help me get a proposal together. I just don't know whether I want six years of it with, as you say, extended periods of hell. I am one of the world's greatest procrastinators so I know I would be doing everything last minute. I wrote the last 3000 words of my MA dissertation the day it had to be handed in, so I have form this area. I'm trying to be realistic about my faults!
It's the logistics too - a lot of the archives I'd need to bury myself in are down south and I'm up north.
I have supervised part-time PhDs that have gone well, and others that have not. The most important consideration is probably how much time you can devote to it. Part-time doesn't mean a few hours here and there. Part-time is meant to mean ~15 hours a week (or more). Perhaps the most important skill you need for a PhD is stubbornness. You're the one who has to keep at it all those years.
There are other ways than a part-time PhD of contributing to research. You could consider whether those may fit you better.
My daughter's state sixth form college got more Oxbridge offers than Eton this year.
Eton restricts the number of applicants it puts forward. Whether that is or isn't meritocratic is another issue but Oxbridge won't take more than one Etonian per college.
Also increasingly Oxbridge and other top universities demand higher grades from private school pupils
That's because a private school pupil with, say, AAB does worse on average than a state school pupil with AAB. (See, for example, https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1339899/ for data in medical school performance.) Private schools provide so much support, they flatter the student's grades, so you need to adjust for that.
My daughter's state sixth form college got more Oxbridge offers than Eton this year.
Eton restricts the number of applicants it puts forward. Whether that is or isn't meritocratic is another issue but Oxbridge won't take more than one Etonian per college.
Also increasingly Oxbridge and other top universities demand higher grades from private school pupils
I was chatting to a fellow at my old college. They have stats that show as they recruit more from the maintained sector based on assessed potential rather than flat exam results, they get better degree results at the other end. They are up to 75% of home students from the maintained sector this year.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
No, I really don't think that's the case.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
Tommy Robinson led a march of hundreds of people this weekend in the Midlands - sure, nowhere near the size of the pro-Palestinian marches, but they still exist. Fascists organise at the Dover border to prevent crossings, and to harass and attack hotels migrants are housed in. We saw a load of fascist thugs march on the Cenotaph only a few months ago, starting brawls with police and bystanders.
Tommeh is an Israel stan now, surely that means it’s impossible for him to be fashy far right?
Nick Griffin is pro Palestine.
You can never tell who the far right hate the most.
Griffin’s positions on Israel are all over the place depending on what he calculated was best for his brand of politics (evidence suggests that he’s not much of a calculator). Naming his pet pigs Anne and Frank was probably the best indicator of his true views.
The organisers of the pro-Israel march went to some lengths to stop Robinson attending.
That the pro-Israel types don't adopt the my enemy's enemy is my friend. It started with you saying how Robinson couldn't be a fascist because he supported Israel and I am explaining to you that if you are saying that is a line adopted by, say, the pro-Israel group, then you are mistaken. As usual.
After replying to the wrong post, explaining why the words you put in my mouth are wrong, excellent.
No bigger bore than a bore on his hobby horse.
2/10 attempt at wriggling out of being caught out.
Another of your old faves. You need a complete revamp of your patter, if you're capable of it at this near atrophied stage.
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
But the entire force of capital, which includes the private media and the political establishment, go out of there way to make left wing policies solutions the equivalent of literal Stalinism whilst painting far right rhetoric as "common sense". The Overton window can only go one way for those people - it's the ratchet effect. So people seeing how impossible it is to get left wing solutions (and Corbyn is hardly far left, he proposed a social democratic policy platform that, when polled on issue by issue rather then as "Corbyn's policies", did have popular support) become disaffected and those who desire a far right solution get told it is always possible (because every party panders to them) and that when their policy preference is enacted and doesn't work that's because it wasn't done harshly enough and the answer is to go even more right wing.
"But the entire force of capital". You been at the Koolaid again? What is this 1875 and we are discussing the Communist Manifesto?
At heart most people like capitalism. What they want is for capitalism to be fair - so no unfair advantages of birth, of wealth etc. They want hard work rewarded.
What they don't want is bullshit economic theories about 'capital' and the 'politcal establishment' etc
Capitalism does not reward fairness or meritocracy - those things are not inherently capitalistic. The advantages of birth are backed into capitalism; inheritance whether in money or assets is the highest predictor of wealth later in life. People who work hard are not rewarded under capitalism. We recognised under Covid that their were such things as "essential workers" - who were they? Shop assistants, nurses, public servants and the like - are they the most well paid? Does a CEO or shareholder of a company work whatever ratio it has more than their lowest paid worker? Capitalism rewards those who help accumulate more capital for capitalists. To do otherwise is counter to capitalist mode of production.
So what is your solution then?
Hard work is rewarded - but yes every job comes with its own salary, and some of them are grossly unfair. And yet. Is it right for a CEO to earn millions? Maybe, if they can show that their input actual generates substantially more than that.
Should lower paid jobs be better paid? Yes - in an ideal world people would not need extra money from government if they are working a 37.5h week. But is it right that I earn more as a Uni lecturer than someone that works in retail? I bring a lifetime of experience of my subject to the role, you can be trained for a job on the tills and stacking shelves in days.
Capitalism cannot be left to run without check, for sure, but I have not seen a better arrangement suggested. What do you propose?
From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs - I do not see why profit motive is necessary or why the private mass accumulation of capital is acceptable. What that means practically? If you're in favour of a state that would mean, in part, state management of resources, workers councils who own the means of production, the seizing and redistribution of assets from the rich to the poor, etc. etc. If you're not in favour of a state (personally I'm not) you would do what the anarchists did in places like Spain at the outbreak of the civil war and what is happening in Rojava now; community and workers councils making democratic decisions about issues and deciding what to do and trade for themselves. Is this Utopian - yes, of course.
I would be happy in the mean time for more social democratic reform, wealth redistribution, empowerment of unions and individual workers and an increased social safety net. These are the things that would tackle the immediate problems that the "free market" are clearly making worse - inflation (to a degree, climate change will increase the scarcity of lots of essential resources), housing, poverty and malnourishment, etc.
"I do not see why profit motive is necessary or why the private mass accumulation of capital is acceptable."
Because HUMAN NATURE. Its how we are wired, I'm afraid. People want stuff. So you basically are an unapologetic communist. Are you Ash Sarkar? She of the luxury communism bent?
In feudal times there were lots of people, including many of those at the bottom of society, who believed it was the natural and right order of things, and they could not conceive of society being ordered in any different way.
There's nothing in human nature that makes capitalism the only, or optimal, way to organise society. We could do things differently if we wanted to. Albeit I would have hoped that the seven quarters of a century since the Communist Manifesto might have provided a few more appealing glimpses of what an alternative might look like than have been provided.
Well done on limiting your booze intake so successfully
I am belatedly doing the same but hoping to find a medium course of still drinking at times but also having half the week entirely sober etc
Question: how do you cope with the boredom? That is what vexes me, still. Booze used to agreeably fill an evening. Now the hours stretch. Yes I read and go to the gym and watch movies and that’s nice but wow there is a lot of time to fill, nonetheless
Sometimes I just want to go to bed at 10pm even if I’m not tired because unconsciousness is less boring
You're cutting out the drink so as to be healthy and live longer whilst finding life itself an utter bore? Hmm.
I don’t find life an utter bore. Did I say that? No I didn’t
I find much of life fascinating and compelling - I’m an enthusiast (as may be obvious) - it’s why I love travel and weird people and exotic places and challenging new ideas
But you can’t be that stimulated all the time, and I used to take the edge off the tedious but necessary “down time” with alcohol - it agreeably eased the slow hours before sleep
I might pop half of one of the magic gummy bears I scandalously smuggled from Bangkok
Well life is hours passing, that's what it is, and you said you were finding many of those hours boring and seemingly endless. In which case (this is just me doing my logic thing) I was wondering why you'd give up a great pleasure (in your case booze) in order to accrue more of them.
But ok I see what you're trying to say about yourself. Can't cope with mundanity. Need to be high octane the whole time, buzzing away.
Not a recipe for longevity, on average, I’d have thought?
A header that mentions the "neoliberal consensus" - good to see pieces recognising that states selling off civic assets may not be seen as a good deal by a majority of the public who like those assets and services and aren't profiting off of them being sold whole sale.
I think we're getting into a position similar to the 20th century - the paradoxes of capitalism are coming home to roost and the inaction of states to safeguard the material needs of the average person is leading towards grievance and a willingness to embrace the far right, even if you don't like them. Liberals are unpopular because they refuse to deal with the issues, left wingers are unpopular because the apparatus of capital control most media and would lose out under a more left wing world so scream bloody hell about anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. And the right are unpopular because their wish casting politics just can't be done.
"embrace the far right"
As Corbyn and his acolytes show, the far left also has significant power for the disaffected.
Far less so than the far right, sadly.
(Snip)
I'm far from convinced that's correct. I'd make a firm guess that most of the people going on pro-Palestine/Hamas marches are left-wing, and they've been mobilised very successfully. The one far right march I've encountered (*) was about six men surrounded by dozens of police (*)
(*) Two, if an Orange Order march in Liverpool is 'right' wing. Those guys looked so stern and unhappy I wondered if they'd be happier and more content just being at home in front of the TV...
Okay, the left is willing to march on the streets. But why is that? Because the left has no belief that the institutional powers will react through the democratic means presented - such as voting or talking to your representative (because both major parties agree on the policy solution). Whereas the far right, currently, are being catered to, again, by both political parties (on immigration, on trans rights, on the enforcement of capitalism, etc.). Street fascists are still mobilising, we see that with attacks on hotels and in Dover, but that is typically people who think the already harsh measure brought in to satiate their blood lust are not far enough. And, again, they are still being pandered to with things like the Rwanda bill.
It is utterly delusional to think that you are currently living under a far right regime. On the issues that you care about, the current government is to the left of New Labour.
On what policy has this government tacked to the left on? Even some of the redistributive measures (such as the money towards energy bills during the inflationary crisis, or Covid measures) were enacted to a) protect the companies and b) prevent complete societal breakdown - and energy prices are still continuing up and up! Are we even looking at the same goddamn country?
The reason you can both believe polar opposites is that the government is all over the place. Says one thing, does another, and then the following year it might even now be doing what it said, but now saying something quite different again.
It has little consistent right/left ideology, and cares mostly about musical chairs within the elite governing party with a smidge of kleptocracy thrown in.
So you both see a failed government, saying things you don't like and inconsistent with your expectations. In reality it is a just a really rubbish government rather than a massively left or right wing government.
Comments
IMV a major issue is that acquiring capital has become split from risk: and too often, the risk is placed on the state, not on companies or organisations.
Because HUMAN NATURE. Its how we are wired, I'm afraid. People want stuff. So you basically are an unapologetic communist. Are you Ash Sarkar? She of the luxury communism bent?
Sunil is an SKS fan even though he has opposing views on Gaza
@DrRobgalloway
·
3h
I genuinely dont understand why there aren't mass demonstrations to save our NHS. The health of our families is the most important thing - and we are loosing our safety net
https://twitter.com/DrRobgalloway/status/1751898250792026390
It's the logistics too - a lot of the archives I'd need to bury myself in are down south and I'm up north.
For the record, I'm in favour of International Aid. But I don't want it wasting.
"Street fascists are still mobilising,"
Yes, we saw them at the pro-HamasPalestinian marches.
It would also require international agreement on what the purpose of peace should even be - as we see with Israel Palestine to the West and Israel peace is the complete displacement of Palestinians from Gaza and Israeli resettling the land with their own people, whereas the UN and many in the global South argue for a two state solution and mutual recognition.
These things will not happen - at least not whilst a rightwing frame work of the world is dominant - because they challenge capital and Western geopolitical hegemony.
She seems to think Ben is in the clear. It would appear to be "legal" if immoral.
She is very much against the NAO rather than Gove's Star Chamber investigating the issue.
My daughter's state sixth form college got more Oxbridge offers than Eton this year.
https://owenwinter.co.uk/2024/01/20/could-conservative-dont-knows-be-causing-the-next-big-polling-error/
Group 2 have different methodologies, for example reallocating some Tory voters who say they will vote Tory but prefer Starmer over Sunak/Labour policies in the supplementary questions.
Another factor is how they treat Reform.
ny times
Whereas your own politics seems to be Communist; and Communists tend to have an uncomfortable amount in common with fascists, such as dictatorial leaders, autocratic governments, suppression of opposition etc. I know modern-day Communists say that next time it will be different, but for some reason I'm not keen on the experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD_cTUSPyYE
Wildfires have been reported in Lochinver, Scotland, following January's hottest ever temperature being recorded in the UK
trib.al/da3gCrF
https://x.com/skynews/status/1751868845118112155?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Social democracy won out in Western countries.
https://www.faena.com/aleph/umberto-eco-a-practical-list-for-identifying-fascists
I consider myself an anarchist, but I would accept libertarian communist (who were the original libertarians, by the way). I would prefer there not to be states, and no vanguard within the party, and a democracy of the workers etc.
Plague on both their houses, obviously.
I'm not sure India or Mexico are that safe places to criticise the dear leader.
You can never tell who the far right hate the most.
That Israel does have the right to cut off water in Gaza as per SKS
https://twitter.com/afshinrattansi/status/1751958438773510635
I'd argue that anyone who wants the best for Palestinians would agree. Rid Gaza of Hamas, and Israel of Likud., and we might get adults talking about peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Italian_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Australian_federal_election
Take lecturing at a uni - it used to be considered a cushy job. Get your contract, research some esoteric stuff, teach students who don't turn up and gain tenure and stop caring about what you say out loud because you can say what you want. If you go into lecturing today, more often then not, you are given the equivalent of a zero-hour contract (contracted as a "visiting lecturer") where you accrue no rights, a shit pension and no job stability - your research has to be profit making and, more often then not, needs to be funded privately. Hence the push towards STEM and away from the Arts - capital likes STEM subjects (and needs STEM development), less so for the arts.
You’re at a bar and you want to order 3 Grey Goose drinks, do you tell the bar staff
1) I want three shots of Grey Goose
2) I want three shots of Grey Geese
3) I want a flock of Vodka
Iam lucky that I do creative work that I really enjoy, as a job - so I can expand that generally, and it pays, of course
Still leaves quite a few hours spare, however
I just don't get "hobbies" - don't grasp the idea. Or maybe my hobbies are simply things I can't do sitting around at home - travel, exploring, etc
I do like cooking, and following quite technical recipes (is that a "hobby"?); but I am still in weight loss/regular fasting mode, so even that is off the list, for now
EEEEK. I shall eat half a smuggled gummy bear
Probably denying the October 7th attacks ever happened is my guess.
The basic right of any asylum seeker is a tent in the desert with three meals a day and return to their own country when circumstances allow. Have a look at Chad or Bangladesh.
Hopefully you mean that you think that you are overpaid, for example relative to the people who work in the factory that made the device you are typing on?
I think most of us start from a position that healthcare provision in the country should be and deserves to be better, though the NHS in large part does an admirable job in very difficult circumstances.
Where it gets complicated is that we all have different opinions as to how we fix it.
Starting from the point where we stop deifying our NHS would be helpful. We need to stop looking at the current way our healthcare is delivered as a sacred cow. You can still hold true to the basic guiding principle of not preventing access to healthcare on the basis of wealth, without treating the whole system as beyond criticism.
The UK state like several other western states, is now enforcing a de facto blasphemy law to protect Islam. There is a teacher from Batley in hiding, and has been for three years, and probably will be for the rest of his life - because of this. Does the UKG do anything to take on the people who have forced him into hiding? No, it does not
Meanwhile Denmark has brought in a law to prohibit the burning of the Koran (and other texts, but we all know why the new law exists)
In free speech we are regressing, there are many other ways we are falling back; we have imported people who do not share modern western values, they are slowly making us conform to their values. And still we import them
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/24/tommy-robinson-not-welcome-at-march-against-antisemitism-say-leaders
There has also been a big shift in the last ten years or more where a large number are going to Ivy League universities as not only do they have global cachet but they also offer financial incentives to attract bright students and don’t have the same hang ups about public schoolboys and their privileges.
No bigger bore than a bore on his hobby horse.
As for in the global context - yeah, lots of people should be paid way more and more than myself for manual labour and such.
Fishing, golf, and Buddhist meditation are all about that.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2022/10/31/oxbridge-demands-higher-grades-from-uk-private-school-pupils-than-state-counterparts/
Boredom is something I have struggled with all my life....
There are other ways than a part-time PhD of contributing to research. You could consider whether those may fit you better.
You need a complete revamp of your patter, if you're capable of it at this near atrophied stage.
There's nothing in human nature that makes capitalism the only, or optimal, way to organise society. We could do things differently if we wanted to. Albeit I would have hoped that the seven quarters of a century since the Communist Manifesto might have provided a few more appealing glimpses of what an alternative might look like than have been provided.
It has little consistent right/left ideology, and cares mostly about musical chairs within the elite governing party with a smidge of kleptocracy thrown in.
So you both see a failed government, saying things you don't like and inconsistent with your expectations. In reality it is a just a really rubbish government rather than a massively left or right wing government.