"Modernism", "Elitism", and "The Working Classes"

[Serial_Apologist]

A very interesting perspective. But I can't help thinking that it assumes (as maybe we all have lately!) that the way a referendum is conducted determines the outcome. It could be argued that the similarity between our 2016 referendum and the 2018 Irish referendum, is that public opinion had pretty much moved on, on both topics and the result reflected that. But credit to the Irish Yes campaign, if they behaved honestly and with political probity.

The way the conducting of a referendum determines the outcome would surely be affected by how informative the arguments were on which voters would decide, though. Bad propaganda, from whichever side or none, with little else to go on, leads to misinformed opinion-shaping.

[Serial_Apologist]

The over-grazing you mention, do you think it just happened for no special reason, or do you think it was wilful? I think there is an important distinction to be made (and Joseph's post #220 is relevant here).

My guess would be that it probably happened unintentionally. Whoever would deliberately want to destroy their own support systems? Evolution's an empirical, learn by mistakes process once intelligence advances to a point that it thinks itself separate from other natural processes. The one whereby people were able to distinguish between plants vital for survival and those that can kill always makes my mind boggle. How long did the learning process take and how many effectively had to be sacrificed through no "fault" of their own or anyone else's?

[Beef Oven!]

The way the conducting of a referendum determines the outcome would surely be affected by how informative the arguments were on which voters would decide, though. Bad propaganda, from whichever side or none, with little else to go on, leads to misinformed opinion-shaping.

But both referendums were conducted differently and the outcome was pretty much what each franchise was thinking before the referendum 'began'.

[Beef Oven!]

My guess would be that it probably happened unintentionally. Whoever would deliberately want to destroy their own support systems? Evolution's an empirical, learn by mistakes process once intelligence advances to a point that it thinks itself separate from other natural processes. The one whereby people were able to distinguish between plants vital for survival and those that can kill always makes my mind boggle. How long did the learning process take and how many effectively had to be sacrificed through no "fault" of their own or anyone else's?

Arguably capitalism has no regard for its support systems - my thinking concerned whether surplus production was 'designed' at that point for the express outcome of trade and therefore a fore-runner of surplus value.

[Serial_Apologist]

But both referendums were conducted differently and the outcome was pretty much what each franchise was thinking before the referendum 'began'.

It would have been much better to have known what each side was thinking - especially as regards what it was basing its thinking on. Your question about intentionality is more relevant to this discussion than the other one!

[Serial_Apologist]

Arguably capitalism has no regard for its support systems - my thinking concerned whether surplus production was 'designed' at that point for the express outcome of trade and therefore a fore-runner of surplus value.

You're right; however surplus product, as such, occurs much further along the historical continuum than the intial intention behind hoarding harvested surpluses "for a rainy day", which is what we were talking about previously in relation to running out because the means and the knowledge needed for less perishable produce and storage had not yet been developed. Guarding that surplus could of course privilege that sector of the tribe, but I understand social surplus product to mean something else entirely, that being the physical manifestation of the value that it has accrued by virtue of the number of hours individually, and later, with capitalism's development of production lines, collectively put into them from the moment of raw materials extraction to the finished product. Value is translatable into money terms, and becomes exchange value when purchase takes place.

The surplus value is the extra money paid out to maintain the boss, who sits in "his" office dishing out orders, hiring and firing - and whose class maintains he deserves more than the most skilled of his employees because he is a rare and valuable specimen of humanity to society - along with the competitiveness and profitabilty of his business necessary to its survival. That's how I understand it to work, though I'm probably a bit deficient in my understanding! If in some revolution one were to get rid of the boss, instead elect who's in charge on a learning curve of given length and income of say a skilled worker, and conduct market research across society to determine the what, when, how much and for how long of given production could be submitted for a sustainable trans-sectioral production plan, that would not get rid of value per se, but return it to its original footings in production hours - that is until enough product had been distributed to satisfy at least basic needs. Marx's idea was that the modern capitalist economy could develop means of production capable of satisfying all these and needs beyond immediate essentials. What was in the way was the competitive set-up with its privileging of commercial secrecy, thus preventing know-how dissemination and sustainable quantification; and the inability to prevent periodical overproduction known euphemisticaly as "recession", de-valuing and dissolving everything including incomes and homes across the economy into a soup of insecurity. With those in charge now the privileged few able through their self-accrued wealth to control the state they've set up, or similarly cobbled up international trade arrangements, the only satisfaction of the moral right of the actual wealth-producers to the full return of the value of their work can be dine by subterfuge and indirection, eg divide-and-rule, and when that doesn't work, using the unemployed army created by periodic recession as a threat; or alternatively inveigling the actual producers into a false paradise of unsustainable provisionality, sometimes known as consumerism, making them feel they have a stake in the status quo.

[french frank]

A very interesting perspective. But I can't help thinking that it assumes (as maybe we all have lately!) that the way a referendum is conducted determines the outcome. It could be argued that the similarity between our 2016 referendum and the 2018 Irish referendum, is that public opinion had pretty much moved on, on both topics and the result reflected that. But credit to the Irish Yes campaign, if they behaved honestly and with political probity.

I do think this. And I'm not sure that such a clear-cut result was expected in Ireland (we should have been so lucky). What struck me was the use of the panel of people who were made very well informed of the issues, how their views informed the line that the government took - and published so that it was clear what was being proposed. The issue was obviously less complex than the the UK referendum, and much more suited to the Yes-No question.

I was struck in that article by two other things: that the awful poster of the No campaign ('Abortion legalised up to 6 months') seemed to have less effect than the poster campaigns in the EU and NotoAV campaigns (Breaking Point, £350m per week, "Vote No or the baby dies") presumably because the Irish government's proposals had been made very clear.

The other point was that the voters were impressed by the personal 'stories', though this was an extremely emotive issue where personal experiences and emotions impressed people more than 'experts'. That might well have been a tactic that would have swung the EU referendum the other way: young people telling their stories of the opportunities that were opened to them, EU citizens on how they had settled into the British way of life and feared whether they would be allowed to stay …

Above all, the debate did seem much better informed than ours.

[Beef Oven!]

I do think this. And I'm not sure that such a clear-cut result was expected in Ireland (we should have been so lucky). What struck me was the use of the panel of people who were made very well informed of the issues, how their views informed the line that the government took - and published so that it was clear what was being proposed. The issue was obviously less complex than the the UK referendum, and much more suited to the Yes-No question.

I was struck in that article by two other things: that the awful poster of the No campaign ('Abortion legalised up to 6 months') seemed to have less effect than the poster campaigns in the EU and NotoAV campaigns (Breaking Point, £350m per week, "Vote No or the baby dies") presumably because the Irish government's proposals had been made very clear.

The other point was that the voters were impressed by the personal 'stories', though this was an extremely emotive issue where personal experiences and emotions impressed people more than 'experts'. That might well have been a tactic that would have swung the EU referendum the other way: young people telling their stories of the opportunities that were opened to them, EU citizens on how they had settled into the British way of life and feared whether they would be allowed to stay …

Above all, the debate did seem much better informed than ours.

From what Ive garnered, it feels like the Irish referendum was indeed better informed. But I do wonder how many people had already made up their mind (in both referendums). And as you have said loud and and long, people tend not to change their mind, no matter how much factual and rational argument is presented!

[Serial_Apologist]

From what Ive garnered, it feels like the Irish referendum was indeed better informed. But I do wonder how many people had already made up their mind (in both referendums). And as you have said loud and and long, people tend not to change their mind, no matter how much factual and rational argument is presented!

That's because so much is at stake in losing face!

[Beef Oven!]

That's because so much is at stake in losing face!

Well sometimes, yes!

But often people don't hold beliefs based on rationale. I'm put in mind of my friend who tried to get his elderly mum to stop renting a handset from BT. He demonstrated that the quarterly charge over the last 10 years could have bought her, her new three-piece suite. That had no effect and she just argued that she trusted a BT handset. When he proved that the BT handset was made in China and she could get an equivalent in Tandy for £7.99, just said that she feels renting is better. I believe she still rents to this day!

[ahinton]

That's because so much is at stake in losing face!

As Richard hs pointed out, the Irish referendum generated a far more conclusive result that then UK one about EU membership; its subject was also rather closer to individual human concerns, not least that of respect for women. I'm no fan of referenda and would have preferred in principle that the Irish one be debated and voted one just as I would the UK/EU one, although I accept that this would likely have been far more difficult to achieve. I just hope that the shortcomings in the Irish one will soon be addressed in order to bring its terms, conditions and provisions into line with the rather les restrictive ones applicable in UK and elsewhere, as I feel sure will indeed be the case.

That said, I agree with BeefO that "the Irish referendum was...better informed" (not that the UK one cold have been much worse informed)...

[Serial_Apologist]

Well sometimes, yes!

But often people don't hold beliefs based on rationale. I'm put in mind of my friend who tried to get his elderly mum to stop renting a handset from BT. He demonstrated that the quarterly charge over the last 10 years could have bought her, her new three-piece suite. That had no effect and she just argued that she trusted a BT handset. When he proved that the BT handset was made in China and she could get an equivalent in Tandy for £7.99, just said that she feels renting is better. I believe she still rents to this day!

Beefy, I've replied to your 2 earlier posts in two messages, #230 and #231 above if you're interested, one short, the other in my longwinded waffle style, so don't feel obligated: I just thought you might like to have had answers to your questions.

[french frank]

And as you have said loud and and long, people tend not to change their mind, no matter how much factual and rational argument is presented!

That is very often the case. The arguments don't go to the root of why people hold their convictions. But changing their minds is not the same as making up their minds. A campaign that is muddled, technical arguments that are contradictory, issues that don't seem particularly relevant leave people uncertain: arguments which leave voters clear in their minds what they are voting for make it easier to decide. In this waυ a campaign can swing a campaign from one decision to another - which matters when both sides have approximately equal support among the ἐντρενψηεδ᾽ωοτερσ. Hit a wrong key there: that was Greek for 'entrenched voters'.

[Beef Oven!]

Beefy, I've replied to your 2 earlier posts in two messages, #230 and #231 above if you're interested, one short, the other in my longwinded waffle style, so don't feel obligated: I just thought you might like to have had answers to your questions.

Yes, I read them - thanks. But too much to get my head around at this late in the day!

[Lat-Literal]

Ooh.

It's all become very Brexity - and a bit Greeny. I can't read it all tonight. Those of us who want strong health provision and the maintenance of a no greater concreted environment because of an ever larger population accept that these two wishes may be a contradiction. I say "may" because we would probably want more concrete figures as proof of the need to ever increase population numbers and housing so that the full welfare state survives and grows. Still, we will take the trees first and that our wellbeing be supported but also money compromised. We'd see trees as being the offset to urban illness. We wouldn't think that the current Green Party has a clue. And we wouldn't accept that we are racist which I am not.

I'd like to reiterate what I said to Chris Philp today which is that I don't agree with him one jot on housing and he is now a Housing Minister but he has been so considerate and actually kind to me in assiduously responding to my ramblings that as a floating voter I have noted it and it matters. I really think at the end of the day that the extent to which they are willing to show some civil accountability means a hell of a lot and they should when they show it know. He sort of offered to find stuff out on my behalf from Liam Fox but I said you are a busy man. If you wish to pass on any thinking of mine from outside the box you should decide which interests you and it would please me but I don't expect you to. In-house teams can be stuck on every option but the obvious one and I do like Davis as a man so I'm doing with my imagination my small bit to try to help them and the country through the current quagmite.

I suppose he sees me as a character.