Class

[Richard Barrett]

Because it's doomed to failure. Anything based on false assumptions goes that way.

Which false assumptions?

And by that token capitalism is certainly doomed to failure, on account of being based on the false assumption that indefinite economic growth is possible (see David Harvey).

[Richard Barrett]

I'd still like to hear something a bit more concrete about how working class people are affected more by austerity.

How about this from today's Independent?

[Beef Oven]

Which false assumptions?

And by that token capitalism is certainly doomed to failure, on account of being based on the false assumption that indefinite economic growth is possible (see David Harvey).

Any false assumptions.

Why do you think capitalism is doomed to failure?

[Beef Oven]

How about this from today's Independent?

I'm asking you RB, not the independent or David Harvey. Tell me a it more about austerity measures affecting working class people more. It's not a trick question.

[Serial_Apologist]

Any false assumptions.

Why do you think capitalism is doomed to failure?

But presumably you had particular false assumptions in mind...

FWIW I don't believe capitalism is doomed to failure, on its own terms. Depends where you are coming from. If recovery is no longer securable through Keynsian demand-management measures that functioned pretty well even in the teeth of increasing capital export for some 25 years, and capitalist think tanks can't think up an alternative, there's nothing to stop them grinding the majority down into the ground until those left employed become mere service-providers to the rich.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm asking you RB, not the independent or David Harvey. Tell me a it more about austerity measures affecting working class people more. It's not a trick question.

What's wrong with sourcing other people's views for back-up?

[Beef Oven]

What's wrong with sourcing other people's views for back-up?

Nothing whatsoever.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'd still like to hear something a bit more concrete about how working class people are affected more by austerity.

And speak for yourself, we are not all British.

I forgot the irony emoticon.

There's plenty on the news about how working class people are being affected. Even the churches are commenting.

[Beef Oven]

I forgot the irony emoticon.

There's plenty on the news about how working class people are being affected. Even the churches are commenting.

I don't understand what the mystery is. I couldn't have put the question more simply.

And why do you keep answering on RB's behalf? (I don't mind as such, but it is unusual)

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't understand what the mystery is. I couldn't have put the question more simply.

No mystery - the Indy article sums the situation up pretty well imv

And why do you keep answering on RB's behalf? (I don't mind as such, but it is unusual)

I've no idea why.

[Flosshilde]

AT the same time, "austerity" affects working-class people overwhelmingly more than it does anyone else. It is class warfare pure and simple.

Yes, I'd agree with that (perhaps not the 'overwhelmingly' bit), but within that it affects women more. That includes women who don't work (outside the house), (including women who might be called 'middle class') not because they want to but can't find it but because they have other responsibilities - caring for children, family members who are disabled or elderly. Unless that's acknowledged & addressed there isn't a meaningful discussion. A discussion based on theoretical writings that don't (or can't because they were written before the mid-twentieth century) take into account the development of sexual politics in the latter half of the twentieth century is one based essentially on men's views.

[Beef Oven]

No mystery - the Indy article sums the situation up pretty well imv



I've no idea why.

There may well be many articles that sum different things up, but that's neither here nor there. it seems very mysterious that a simple answer to a simple question can't be given.

I will leave it there, as even I know when to give up.

I suppose there's even less chance of me getting an answer to my question concerning what we might replace capitalism with (for those that don't like capitalism).

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, I'd agree with that (perhaps not the 'overwhelmingly' bit), but within that it affects women more. That includes women who don't work (outside the house), (including women who might be called 'middle class') not because they want to but can't find it but because they have other responsibilities - caring for children, family members who are disabled or elderly. Unless that's acknowledged & addressed there isn't a meaningful discussion. A discussion based on theoretical writings that don't (or can't because they were written before the mid-twentieth century) take into account the development of sexual politics in the latter half of the twentieth century is one based essentially on men's views.

Remembering what happened to Spare Rib worries me about identity politics. Recognition of class as key doesn't disacknowledge what minority political campaigns have taught us... I hope!

[Flosshilde]

Well, looking at some of the contributions here it does seem to me that 'minority' (women are actually a majority of the population) politics is dismissed or considered to be something that can be added on later. & what is class politics if not 'identity' politics? Especially now - someone from a working class background, who has gone to university & now has an office or professional job has to decide who they identify with - working class or middle class?

[Serial_Apologist]

There may well be many articles that sum different things up, but that's neither here nor there. it seems very mysterious that a simple answer to a simple question can't be given.

I will leave it there, as even I know when to give up.

It wouldn't be a simple answer, but a timewasting one with me having to think of all the ways in which the capitalist crisis is hitting working people and then delivering them to you signed Serial Apologist, when it is all out there to save time!

I suppose there's even less chance of me getting an answer to my question concerning what we might replace capitalism with (for those that don't like capitalism).

The general tenor of the thread is class, what are its causes, and is some kind of socialism (maybe under a different name?) the, or a, solution?

Socialism, as I understand it, would be summed up in Clause 4 of the LP's constitution, until Bliar did away with it. I don't still have my old membership card, so this is probably inaccurate or inadequate, but it argued for the means of production, or at least the key economically pertinent parts of it, to be put under democratically-controlled collective ownership. Qualitatively different, in other words, from merely nominally in public ownership, as happened under the Attlee government. How we get from here to there will now probably be a long drawn out process involving formations of new parties, splits etc - a precondition of which is trying to ensure right now that those currently threatened with having their means of support decimated are up to making sure this does not happen, and that eventually communities and workforces are up to running society themselves.