Grendel
Well-Known Member
Bragg is a wealthy man and a bore who is like Wolfie Smith driving a Rolls Royce
And the right love to point out they're not associated with Nazis and bigotry, while using socialism as a perjorative.
In itself that's exactly what Bragg is arguing is a positive - not allowing the entitled to spread dangerous ideas and ideology unchallenged.
Did he not believe in basic terms it was a necessary evolution into socialism that would eventually occur through means of revolution as the capitalist system fails the majority of the population?
I really must read more Marx, because I feel like a bluffer having read little more than books about his beliefs. However, having said that, it's my understanding that he believed that Socialism would come naturally, without revolution.
Unlike Eagleton, you resort to playing the man and not the ball. Ideas don't become more or less relevant depending on what car you're driving.Bragg is a wealthy man and a bore who is like Wolfie Smith driving a Rolls Royce
Capitalism is society progressing from feudalism. He'd argue that until the conditions are b right, we don't move to his idea of socialism and it would happen organically, although with the workers rising up.I really must read more Marx, because I feel like a bluffer having read little more than books about his beliefs. However, having said that, it's my understanding that he believed that Socialism would come naturally, without revolution.
New Zealand, Labour governmentIt depends on how you define terms. People on here have referred to Nordic countries and even New Zealand as socialist which is laughable and I assume it’s those types of countries he would be fond of
Control of means of production and no route out via a ballot box wasn’t what he supported. He was a bit of a macartharist wasn’t he?
As for Orwell it appears he was an advocate of the British monarchy
I’m sure Tony will be frantically providing silly links but a monarchist with a black book of revolutionary activists is hardly a tub thumping socialist in my view
It's a very dangerous criticism to go down that line. There's always somebody who's read more...Don't dis the Tonester. In my opinion the very greatest insight and understanding of every nuance can be obtained by googling links rather than actually reading the books.
It's a very dangerous criticism to go down that line. There's always somebody who's read more...
He also makes plenty of antisemitic comments in the books that I've read. Maybe that's why ppl think he's a socialist? But it's important to note that not all antisemites are left wing.
Don't dis the Tonester. In my opinion the very greatest insight and understanding of every nuance can be obtained by googling links rather than actually reading the books.
no shit!
Stalin is about as Marxist as Trump too.The national socialists were about as socialist as the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a democracy
Stalin is about as Marxist as Trump too.
Appropriation is something else entirely.
The national socialists were about as socialist as the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a democracy
In its own way, and as far as I understand it, certain acts are along the lines of cancel culture, yet insidious and slipped under the radar. Grendel has tried just such a thing with Orwell; forget the ideas and instead point towards his lifestyle. trench has tried the same, throw in the idea of antisemitism to diminish a particular argument and silence it. That is no different then silencing JK Rowling's ideas on feminism, because of her attitude to transgender, Starkey's historical impact removed because of his racism.But even today antisemitism is rife on the right. Jews have always been the biggest bogeyman for the higher echelons of the far right even though the knuckle draggers on the ground are spouting off about Muslims, blacks and Asians.
I remember a quote in one of the books I've read about them from a senior member of one of the far right groups, "blacks and Asians are the scab, Jews are the sore". Charming.
But even today antisemitism is rife on the right. Jews have always been the biggest bogeyman for the higher echelons of the far right even though the knuckle draggers on the ground are spouting off about Muslims, blacks and Asians.
I remember a quote in one of the books I've read about them from a senior member of one of the far right groups, "blacks and Asians are the scab, Jews are the sore". Charming.
Look no further than the ongoing conspiracy theories about George Soros
It’s your view because you like a lazy trope.As for Orwell it appears he was an advocate of the British monarchy
I’m sure Tony will be frantically providing silly links but a monarchist with a black book of revolutionary activists is hardly a tub thumping socialist in my view
Reading books is one thing understanding them is something else. You’ve just spent the best part of two days telling us how you’ve read many George Orwell books and yet somehow come to the conclusion that he’s anti-socialism. Your mate Grendull is another. He’s so entrenched in a lazy right wing tropes he lacks the ability to identify socialism, dismisses socialist countries as socialists based on that trope and declares that you can’t be a socialist and pro monarchy which is really odd as every committed Tory voter I know also wants the monarchy abolished, unless it can be used as a stick to bash Corbyn with.He also makes plenty of antisemitic comments in the books that I've read. Maybe that's why ppl think he's a socialist? But it's important to note that not all antisemites are left wing.
Don't dis the Tonester. In my opinion the very greatest insight and understanding of every nuance can be obtained by googling links rather than actually reading the books.
That’s a pretty balanced response and probably about right. As the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s as true of the left as it is the right.I've always considered Orwell as someone who fundamentally agrees with socialism but is angered by those who use it as an excuse to remove the elite to become the elite.
It's not the more even society he rails against in his work, it's the individuals who manipulate it for their own purposes and his attempts to then work out how to prevent it happening, or if it's even possible.
That’s a pretty balanced response and probably about right. As the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s as true of the left as it is the right.
Personally I wouldn’t abolish the monarchy, I think it has a massive amount of modernisation to do still including defining its roll and a massive cull of the coat hangers, I’m also pro House of Lords, even more so in the last year as it was the only mechanism attempting to keep Boris and co in check when they started abusing the sovereignty of government, the very thing they’d campaigned to “save”, even the queen wasn’t safe from Boris’ lies.
Even Billy Bragg has argued for a reformed House of Lords. Like you say though, a matter for another debate.I'd favour getting rid of the monarchy and maintaining the Lords but with complete elimination of hereditary titles. A matter for another debate though!
In its own way, and as far as I understand it, certain acts are along the lines of cancel culture, yet insidious and slipped under the radar. Grendel has tried just such a thing with Orwell; forget the ideas and instead point towards his lifestyle. trench has tried the same, throw in the idea of antisemitism to diminish a particular argument and silence it. That is no different then silencing JK Rowling's ideas on feminism, because of her attitude to transgender, Starkey's historical impact removed because of his racism.
It expands, elsewhere, as well - the use of certain figures to demonise an idea, rather than engage with the idea itself, it's an attempt to marginalise, to put back in its place, to allow the dominant ideology free reign over ideas as they used to have, to remove the challenge and silence it, de-platform it by association or otherwise.
That is as much the ethos of cancel culture as anything else and the irony is, its practiced by those who claim to want free speach, liberalism, and the ability of all people to speak their views. That's just lip service to the actuality, as much as Stalin was lip service to Marxism.
'What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labour. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labour time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour cost. The same amount of labour which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.'
Which is often converted to the 'people' owning the means of production. The 'people' do not own the means of production in any Scandinavian country.
As always, trying to treat an argument seriously is futile.
what are you referring to by here?
I'm not. It's a quote from Marx.
The antisemitism quip was a joke. Do you honestly believe that I habitually try to slip silencing slurs into conversations rather than addressing the issue head on? There are many more who avoid original thought and the effort of honestly making an argument. Instead they simply diminish what others write with the trendy words of the day - such as 'lazy' and 'trope'. That's not an argument - it's a get out because you cannot or will not address the points made. It's so easy to rely on trite put downs and platitudes. It's not so easy to think critically and then organise your thoughts into an argument. Posting links to what other people have written is just as lazy - it's another avoidance tactic.
I can imagine that at the time, socialism did seem like a good idea. However it has so spectacularly failed every time that it has been tried that to continue to chase the seemingly unimplementable Utopia must come with lashings of selective vision - whether that be conscious or not. And it seems that the only way that some can reconcile the disconnection is to either claim that:
- That wasn't real socialism.
- Some successful capitalist countries with high taxation are socialist counter-examples.
For the first, Western socialists all applauded those socialist states at the time; they just swivel on a sixpence after they fail.
And for the second, socialism actually means something:
'What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labour. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labour time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour cost. The same amount of labour which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.'
Which is often converted to the 'people' owning the means of production. The 'people' do not own the means of production in any Scandinavian country.
As always, trying to treat an argument seriously is futile.
Everyone who voted leave is a racist, true story.You’re the one playing “no true socialist” though. You’ve decided if it isn’t successful putting the means of production in worker control immediately it’s not socialism. Then you pick a few failed states to make your point. It’s a fundamentally unserious argument. Like me saying post war Syria proves libertarianism is a bust and therefore all right wing thought.
Political ideology isn’t anything like as homogenous or easily defined as you seem to wish. “Socialism” is an umbrella that stretches to include everything from social democrats to communists and anarchists in some cases. It’s simple not well defined enough to make the kind of sweeping statements you want to make.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?