Dubstepforum.com

scspkr99 wrote:I'd be one of them

Sure, but my point is that I see a lot of <25 year olds who here are vehemently anti-Thatcher.

scspkr99 wrote:My point is that if the self righteous reactionary stuff is a reaction to Thatcher it's a little slow.

The Thatcher era was a critical time in the modern history of the UK. Many cultural memes were born at that time and passed down to subsequent generations. Yes, it is slow. But different parts of culture move faster than others.

I find the common expression of pro-working class ideals particularly similar to each other and usually very unfounded, where I believe they're upheld for the sake of it, and not through critical thought by most people. Needless to say, there are people who hold these ideals for legitemate and rationally thought out reasons, but they are in a minority. After the Thatcher era, a pro-working class stand has become apart of the UK's cultural identity, not a rationally thought-out ideal. Which is reflected by people's actions, which this video demonstrates.

wub wrote:Also, related question;

In OP video, the guy was told by a policeman that the sandwich board was offensive. What's the law pertaining to such obscene words being displayed in public?

Id imagine hes got a right to freedom of expression, just as people have the right to disagree and tell him to fuck off, but then again I do think sometimes the majority of people in this country tend to stifle opinions that they strongly disagree with, rather than challenging them in open debate and letting people see for themselves why x opinion is wrong. Happens a lot with left wing politicians, they always seem to shout people down when they disagree with them. Not attacking left wing ideology in any way, just a lot of left wing politicians seem to be gobshites.

wub wrote:Always intrigues me when people under the age of 25 start blaming Thatcher for things.

Question to US ninjas <25yrs old; do you blame Reagan for anything, even though you weren't alive to remember him being President?

I'm UK but under 25 and yes, financial deregulation. Not only am I young enough that I don't remember him being President but I was born on the other side of the atlantic.. I can still blame him or attribute things to him.

Cheeky wrote:Happens a lot with left wing politicians, they always seem to shout people down when they disagree with them. Not attacking left wing ideology in any way, just a lot of left wing politicians seem to be gobshites.

i think the tories are much worse for this actually, the current government never seems to have any interest in engaging with criticism beyond laughing it off as just a bunch of silly left wing nonsense

but then i intensely dislike the tories so it's probably just however your bias manifests itself

hm. I'd love to say something worthwile and intelligible on this topic, but I'm pretty sure my english isn't up to the task.

wonder what the reactions in switzerland would be like, especially in the financial district of Zurich. it probably is safe to assume people would take one look at the sandwich board, identify the sarcasm behind the statement and shrug it off as another leftist student prick trying to raise awareness for whatever is hot at the minute.

Genevieve wrote: The Thatcher era was a critical time in the modern history of the UK. Many cultural memes were born at that time and passed down to subsequent generations. Yes, it is slow. But different parts of culture move faster than others.

I find the common expression of pro-working class ideals particularly similar to each other and usually very unfounded, where I believe they're upheld for the sake of it, and not through critical thought by most people. Needless to say, there are people who hold these ideals for legitemate and rationally thought out reasons, but they are in a minority. After the Thatcher era, a pro-working class stand has become apart of the UK's cultural identity, not a rationally thought-out ideal. Which is reflected by people's actions, which this video demonstrates.

Some of this I agree with and some I don't. I'd still contend that as the working class remains the largest class then the voicing of working class ideals is often sincere if self interested. I accept their may be a shabby chic element to it but the truth is there have been a plethora of anti-working class policies enacted over the last 30 years certainly enough to make a pro working class stand less defining of UK politics.

You're right with regard to Thatchers period being a critical time she's easy to popularise as a demon and many celebrating her death will be too young to have their own reasons.

As it is I'm unsure of just how relevant class is now.

scspkr99 wrote: As it is I'm unsure of just how relevant class is now.

i'd say more than ever? the super wealthy are fully aware they belong to a "class" and they stick together to defend their class interest

one of the greatest swindle of the thatcher/reagan era was to convince lower classes there was no such thing as "class warfare"

dfaultuzr wrote: i'd say more than ever? the super wealthy are fully aware they belong to a "class" and they stick together to defend their class interest

one of the greatest swindle of the thatcher/reagan era was to convince lower classes there was no such thing as "class warfare"

My concern is that notions of class have been diluted to the point that it becomes less useful. The middle class has become synonymous with everyone who works in an office in any kind of profession, there's a distinction between manual and clerical workers and class identification is liquid.

What I consider more relevant is inequality and injustice and these seem easier to identify. I also think for class to be relevant someone needs to want to talk to and for the working class and I'm not sure who is.

dfaultuzr wrote:

scspkr99 wrote: As it is I'm unsure of just how relevant class is now.

i'd say more than ever? the super wealthy are fully aware they belong to a "class" and they stick together to defend their class interest

The super wealthy are in competition with each other to be wealthier than the other and only collaborate when they believe it gives them an advantage or a promise of more profits, but would be very willing to sell out the other if they see fit. Rich jerk A from New York does not give a fuck about rich jerk B from Monaco. Remember that rich jerk A has something rich jerk B also wants more of; wealth. The only real class struggle that exists is within the upper classes themselves.

I think most of what we call and perceive as 'class struggle' is the state's attempts to increase its own power, by keeping working class poor and blaming the wealth Talking the working class into believing that the wealthy are a danger to them and only the almighty state has the capability to save them.

But a 'class struggle' as suggested Marx is a myth.

wub wrote:Question to US ninjas <25yrs old; do you blame Reagan for anything, even though you weren't alive to remember him being President?

not really. I mostly blame the government and representative democracy.

Genevieve wrote:The only real class struggle that exists is within the upper classes themselves.

Individually they are because they're in the same 'league' but on a bigger scale surely there is a class struggle? Theres loads of examples where the wealthiest cause something, gain the most and the poor pay the price.

Its probably not class but I don't think the 99% against the wealthiest 1% is a myth.. but obviously the average joe on the street isn't in competition with some oligarch because they're just in different leagues.

Genevieve wrote:I think most of what we call and perceive as 'class struggle' is the state's attempts to increase its own power, by keeping working class poor and blaming the wealth Talking the working class into believing that the wealthy are a danger to them and only the almighty state has the capability to save them.

But a 'class struggle' as suggested Marx is a myth.

Who is the state?

Muncey wrote:

Genevieve wrote:The only real class struggle that exists is within the upper classes themselves.

Individually they are because they're in the same 'league' but on a bigger scale surely there is a class struggle? Theres loads of examples where the wealthiest cause something, gain the most and the poor pay the price.

Its probably not class but I don't think the 99% against the wealthiest 1% is a myth.. but obviously the average joe on the street isn't in competition with some oligarch because they're just in different leagues.

You can look at society, create any artificial distinction in society (such as upper/working class), presuppose a 'struggle' and be correct. But it doesn't really mean a whole lot. I could fabricate a parent/child struggle on the spot and have it work logically as a model, but does it apply in the real world?

Genevieve wrote:You can look at society, create any artificial distinction in society (such as upper/working class), presuppose a 'struggle' and be correct. But it doesn't really mean a whole lot. I could fabricate a parent/child struggle on the spot and have it work logically as a model, but does it apply in the real world?

I've fabricated a struggle between you and reality but come to think of it logically it works.

Genevieve wrote:

Muncey wrote:

Genevieve wrote:The only real class struggle that exists is within the upper classes themselves.

Individually they are because they're in the same 'league' but on a bigger scale surely there is a class struggle? Theres loads of examples where the wealthiest cause something, gain the most and the poor pay the price.

Its probably not class but I don't think the 99% against the wealthiest 1% is a myth.. but obviously the average joe on the street isn't in competition with some oligarch because they're just in different leagues.

You can look at society, create any artificial distinction in society (such as upper/working class), presuppose a 'struggle' and be correct. But it doesn't really mean a whole lot. I could fabricate a parent/child struggle on the spot and have it work logically as a model, but does it apply in the real world?

It depends on information and the quality of information and how its delivered. The media is pretty heavy on promoting the class struggle of the poor so without them there probably wouldn't be class struggle so it could be artificial.. most poor people wouldn't really be blaming the wealthiest without being pushed into that direction by the media. But thats not to say its completely fabricated and there isn't any issues based on inequalities, ask people what they think of the continued income gap growing and what they think of hundreds of bottom level people losing their jobs while the guys that cause the problems leave with 9 figure bonuses and 'unfair' would probably be a popular reply. Essentially class struggle is just that, unfair inequalities and I don't agree they're fabricated.

scspkr99 wrote:

Genevieve wrote:I think most of what we call and perceive as 'class struggle' is the state's attempts to increase its own power, by keeping working class poor and blaming the wealth Talking the working class into believing that the wealthy are a danger to them and only the almighty state has the capability to save them.

But a 'class struggle' as suggested Marx is a myth.

Who is the state?

The state is the self-enforcing monopoly of guns, of course.

But the argument you're implying doesn't hold up since it poses that its a struggle created by different "economic status", but if you were to remove the state, then the class struggle as you are trying to frame it would go away. I.e, in my anarcho-capitalist wetdream society, the class struggle would not exist, but people would still be "economically unequal";. so then calling it the class struggle would be a misnomer.

Pedro Sánchez wrote:

Genevieve wrote:You can look at society, create any artificial distinction in society (such as upper/working class), presuppose a 'struggle' and be correct. But it doesn't really mean a whole lot. I could fabricate a parent/child struggle on the spot and have it work logically as a model, but does it apply in the real world?

I've fabricated a struggle between you and reality but come to think of it logically it works.

Remember that one time you actually had a rebuttal to my arguments? Me neither.

Muncey wrote:You can look at society, create any artificial distinction in society (such as upper/working class), presuppose a 'struggle' and be correct. But it doesn't really mean a whole lot. I could fabricate a parent/child struggle on the spot and have it work logically as a model, but does it apply in the real world?

It depends on information and the quality of information and how its delivered. The media is pretty heavy on promoting the class struggle of the poor so without them there probably wouldn't be class struggle so it could be artificial.. most poor people wouldn't really be blaming the wealthiest without being pushed into that direction by the media. But thats not to say its completely fabricated and there isn't any issues based on inequalities, ask people what they think of the continued income gap growing and what they think of hundreds of bottom level people losing their jobs while the guys that cause the problems leave with 9 figure bonuses and 'unfair' would probably be a popular reply. Essentially class struggle is just that, unfair inequalities and I don't agree they're fabricated.[/quote]

Class struggle theory assumes that class struggle is the product of "economic inequality"; if however its a media creation, then class struggle isn't the product of "economic quality", then it's the quality of misinformation and propaganda, and then it stops being a class struggle.

But if the economic inequality, such as those massive banker bonuses, aren't made public how can people be aware of the inequalities? Its hard to know you're being taken advantage of without the information.. if the media exaggerates this information yes it borders on propaganda but doesn't stop the economic inequality from being an economic inequality.. its just been exaggerated.

You can exaggerate any problem, it doesn't make the problem a myth.

I don't like the phrase class struggle though, it does paint a picture that doesn't apply to real life but to write it off as a myth is a bit far imo.

I think that calling the rich vs poor debate a class struggle misses the point somewhat. From the "rich" side, there isn't actually any struggle. They aren't out to trample on the rest because that side of things is so far removed from their day-to-day lives that they don't really register.

The struggle is very much one-sided, where the ones who are less-well-off see the inequalities that come with the two juxtapositions as enforced/purposeful oppression.

The class struggle will never end unless all parties see past their own worldviews, stop shouting, and actually talk.

kay wrote: The class struggle will never end unless all parties see past their own worldviews, stop shouting, and actually talk.

kay wrote:The struggle is very much one-sided, where the ones who are less-well-off see the inequalities that come with the two juxtapositions as enforced/purposeful oppression.

I dunno, the wealthy can and do go to really extreme efforts to hold their position in society. They don't directly struggle to make people worse off but they indirectly do by going to extreme efforts to hold their position and get the advantages.

If there wasn't a struggle to hold their position political bribes pretty much wouldn't exist.