|
Post by Mrs V Smegma on Dec 14, 2020 23:14:36 GMT
I bet you can’t wait to be sucking on chlorinated chicken post Brexit. Why oh why can’t politicians admit to messing up and do their best for the country. Brexit is a failure of politics which is a failure of people holding their representatives to account. You get American Bacon as a result. We already have chlorinated food in UK Chelts.I'll see how things go regarding what I eat.Can't see me having a nervous breakdown because it's Cheddar instead of Brie. Hoping for WTO! Edit.I bet we still get Danissssssssh bacon. Chlorination tends to be on things like prewashed salads. Chlorination of chicken on the other hand is needed in places like the USA because they have lower farming standards than the EU and hence higher risk of bacteria that would make us really ill. Interesting to see a relatively recent yougov survey suggests most Brits don't think eating it is a very good idea yougov.co.uk/topics/food/articles-reports/2020/06/16/britain-chlorinated-chicken-US-trade-deal Conservative voters are more likely to support it than anyone else - I suspect they will have the luxury of choice and probably won't eat it themselves. Cost is going to be the thing that determines what people eat rather than choice. You might find that Danish bacon is out of your price range, even though some of it will still be imported. The Danes won't export it to us in current quantities if it becomes too expensive because of tariffs and doesn't sell. Any idea how much of your cheddar is imported from the EU, and what WTO terms would do to the price of that?
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Dec 15, 2020 7:08:01 GMT
Na, he's a norrvern ponce! I understand the notion but I disagree. That's all. But all we are doing is reiterating our points, so ironically you are making my point for me - politics in sport can be divisive as we clearly don't wholly agree. discrimin As noble as those gestures might be well being, I think politics will always divide. As much as the gestures have tried to include, and as benign as they're implemented, positive discrimination can be held in opposite esteem. Sport, especially professional football is the ultimate in non discrimination. Basically, if you're good enough, it doesn't matter whether you go on both knees to an extremest organisation; wear flamboyant laces; prefer kids (you don't have) get vouchers for food so the parents can smoke or drink more; conform to meaningless gestures, or not, you are in! You're wanted! Competitive sport holds no discrimination, it's based on ability.Politics will always divide. Plenty of footballers would I think disagree with this, especially those who are black, asian, homosexual etc - basically anyone who doesn't conform to the cultural norm whatever that might be. Look at how few black or asian managers there have been. There's no logical reason to explain this, other than they face disadvantages that white people don't. Unfortunately whilst I wish it was otherwise, I do think there is sufficient evidence to suggest there is still discrimination in sport, albeit likely on a more covert and sinister basis than in the past. I also think that Concept is right - it's impossible to isolate sport from politics. as it is also impossible to isolate politics from life. In an ideal world you would be right, but this is far from an ideal world. Your post might be right where the scenario has become impossible to isolate sport from politics, but that's not something I agree with. FIFA have been trying to resist this with no propaganda labels on shirts....I think this is the correct stance. Discourage politics integration is the right way forward. Totally disagree with your post on what players think with regards to race and homosexuality etc, because it's quite easy......can anyone name one potential player that can't get a contract because of their sexuality? Or race? And to reiterate, if Kilgour was gay, McCormick a racist and Westbrooke a alcoholic, are you seriously expecting no one to cheer their goals...? The basic rule is if you're good enough, you're always going to be in demand whatever your demeanor, even to the extent if you have transgressed the law. Sport is non discriminatory because it's based on ability.
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Dec 15, 2020 7:49:01 GMT
Plenty of footballers would I think disagree with this, especially those who are black, asian, homosexual etc - basically anyone who doesn't conform to the cultural norm whatever that might be. Look at how few black or asian managers there have been. There's no logical reason to explain this, other than they face disadvantages that white people don't. Unfortunately whilst I wish it was otherwise, I do think there is sufficient evidence to suggest there is still discrimination in sport, albeit likely on a more covert and sinister basis than in the past. I also think that Concept is right - it's impossible to isolate sport from politics. as it is also impossible to isolate politics from life. In an ideal world you would be right, but this is far from an ideal world. Your post might be right where the scenario has become impossible to isolate sport from politics, but that's not something I agree with. FIFA have been trying to resist this with no propaganda labels on shirts....I think this is the correct stance. Discourage politics integration is the right way forward. Totally disagree with your post on what players think with regards to race and homosexuality etc, because it's quite easy......can anyone name one potential player that can't get a contract because of their sexuality? Or race?
And to reiterate, if Kilgour was gay, McCormick a racist and Westbrooke a alcoholic, are you seriously expecting no one to cheer their goals...? The basic rule is if you're good enough, you're always going to be in demand whatever your demeanor, even to the extent if you have transgressed the law. Sport is non discriminatory because it's based on ability. No, but then I can't name one single gay player.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Dec 15, 2020 10:58:43 GMT
Your post might be right where the scenario has become impossible to isolate sport from politics, but that's not something I agree with. FIFA have been trying to resist this with no propaganda labels on shirts....I think this is the correct stance. Discourage politics integration is the right way forward. Totally disagree with your post on what players think with regards to race and homosexuality etc, because it's quite easy......can anyone name one potential player that can't get a contract because of their sexuality? Or race?
And to reiterate, if Kilgour was gay, McCormick a racist and Westbrooke a alcoholic, are you seriously expecting no one to cheer their goals...? The basic rule is if you're good enough, you're always going to be in demand whatever your demeanor, even to the extent if you have transgressed the law. Sport is non discriminatory because it's based on ability. No, but then I can't name one single gay player. Thanks for the courtesy of addressing the point, Rex. I can. Bob Taylor. According to chant, he was unfortunate to always be offside AND more fortunate to be a homosexual. The only away player to have more than one chant!
|
|
|
Post by Mrs V Smegma on Dec 16, 2020 0:05:20 GMT
Your post might be right where the scenario has become impossible to isolate sport from politics, but that's not something I agree with. FIFA have been trying to resist this with no propaganda labels on shirts....I think this is the correct stance. Discourage politics integration is the right way forward. Totally disagree with your post on what players think with regards to race and homosexuality etc, because it's quite easy......can anyone name one potential player that can't get a contract because of their sexuality? Or race? And to reiterate, if Kilgour was gay, McCormick a racist and Westbrooke a alcoholic, are you seriously expecting no one to cheer their goals...? The basic rule is if you're good enough, you're always going to be in demand whatever your demeanor, even to the extent if you have transgressed the law. Sport is non discriminatory because it's based on ability.I'm not saying I agree with politics intervening in sport. I am saying though that it is inevitable as life is not as neatly compartmentalised as you seem to think. I really don't understand the point you are trying to make above. Are you really saying that black players are never discriminated against in professional football? That they are always treated equally as white players? Seriously? So Anton Ferdinand etc are just making s**t up? How do you explain the dearth of BAME managers in the game? Based on ability, so BAME players are less able than white? Why have no players come out of the closet? Is that because there are no homosexual footballers or might it be that the culture and prejudice within football dissuades them from doing so? They'd undoubtedly get slaughtered on the terraces. Re our club, I'd have absolutely no issue with an openly homosexual player as quite frankly it is no-one else's business. I would not want a racist anywhere near our club as to me it is abhorrent. An alcoholic may have issues with fitness and training etc, but as long as they were doing the business on the field that wouldn't bother me either. I would hope however that the club would help and support them though as alcoholism is a terrible disease. I think there is plenty of evidence of discrimination in football, and you don't have to scratch the surface too far to find it.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs V Smegma on Dec 16, 2020 0:26:45 GMT
No, but then I can't name one single gay player. Thanks for the courtesy of addressing the point, Rex. I can. Bob Taylor. According to chant, he was unfortunate to always be offside AND more fortunate to be a homosexual. The only away player to have more than one chant! Justin Fashanu and Thomas Hitzlsperger are the two I remember - Fashanu's life ended in tragedy, and Hitzlsperger only came out after he retired as he knew the culture in professional football would have made his life a misery. I don't remember the Taylor chant O2B. I assume the reference to him is a joke? He was one of the few Sheededs of that era that I have any respect for. An excellent player for them, and I don't remember him gloating like some of the f**kwits they had playing for them around that time. I especially hated Glynn Riley and the thieving postman, Andy Llewelyn.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs V Smegma on Dec 16, 2020 0:36:06 GMT
If you get the chance to go, grab it with both hands. Chile being a long and thin country it is incredibly varied, from the Atacama desert, to the glaciers of Patagonia, with volcanoes and mountains in between. As your Dad discovered, the people are also incredibly kind and friendly. Some of the best wines that I’ve sampled, have been from Chile. I have yet to see any holidays to that country though. It’s a shame more people don’t travel Chilean wine is generally very good, as is Argentinian (I particularly like wine made from the Torrontes grape), and Uruguayan is also on the up. I went to Chile after 6 months working in the Falkland Islands. Hitched a lift on a ship that the UK Government had chartered, and which had hit a rock and was being dry docked in Punta Arenas to remove the concrete in the front end that was keeping it afloat. Then backpacked with a mate all the way up through South America to Belize. An excellent experience in my formative years, which I'm unlikely to have the opportunity to repeat (sadly)
|
|
|
Post by Mrs V Smegma on Dec 16, 2020 1:04:40 GMT
We won't get a better deal that we had whilst in the EU. Nations won't give us that and risk antagonising the much larger EU market. The best we can possibly hope for is the same deal we had whilst we were EU members. The much hyped Japanese deal is I understand not so good as we enjoyed whilst EU members. i pent a few weeks there touring the Lucerne area whilst living in Munich. It's really beautiful there and one of my favourite places I've been in Europe. Found the people really kind and helpful but it helps I think that I speak passable German. I also speak German but maybe more than passable. Lived and worked there for close to 3.5 years. As you say, years ahead, better standard of living and people are warm and very friendly , on the whole. I would have stayed if not for my parents getting sick and needing care. It’s something I regret to this day. I expected people to be aggressive and the reality was the polar opposite. I absolutely love the country Where in Germany did you live KP? I lived for 4 years in Munich between 96 and 2000 - fabulous experience and standard of living. I too changed my mind on the Germans after experiencing reality. If I were to stereotype, I would say they are generally very earnest, and stick to the promises they make. The antics of the Government with the Internal Market bill will not have played out well in Berlin. They also like the British sense of humour, try to emulate it and often don't succeed. I made good friends there and we had some especially kind and dear neighbours. We lived in a suburb of Munich (population 20000) with its own pro football team, who were playing about 10 leagues above where their fanbase would merit them. They were in 2nd Bundesliga when I arrived and were perennial favourites for relegation. The year before I returned home, the unthinkable happened and they got promoted to the premier Bundesliga. First year up they gave all the big boys real problems - 6 points from Dortmund, 6 points from Stuttgart, gave Bayern two really close games, and on the last day of the season enabled Bayern to come from a long way back to win the league by beating Bayer Leverkusen 2-0. They had no stars (Albanian Altin Rrakili was the closest to a big name for them) but they worked incredibly hard, were organised and disciplined and became incredibly hard to beat. They ended up missing out on a European place by a point or two. Second season they got relegated but still managed to beat Bayern in the process. They've never seriously threatened to return to those heights and now ply their trade in the 3rd Bundesliga. Ralph Hasenhuttl earned his managerial spurs with them, and I am intrigued to see how well he is doing at Southampton. We were season ticket holders along with a number of other Brits. We were like minor celebrities, and their fans were amused and bemused in equal measure that they had this hard core group of us there. There was an Italian trattoria and beer garden attached to the ground, and the players would completely mingle with the fans afterward. I did several away trips with their fans including their away win at Stuttgart. One of my favourite memories was the home game against 1860 Munich. Ex s**thead Paul Agostino was playing for them, and because it was a tight little ground, was clearly able to see my Rovers shirt and hear the dog's sbuse I heaped on him the whole game. b'stard had the last laugh though by scoring a very late and undeserved equaliser. Brilliant times, and some really treasured memories. I never thought there would be room in my heart for a football team other than the Gas but they really got to me. I'd have been really torn if we played them competitively. The team? - Spielvereinigung Unterhaching.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Dec 16, 2020 10:05:32 GMT
Your post might be right where the scenario has become impossible to isolate sport from politics, but that's not something I agree with. FIFA have been trying to resist this with no propaganda labels on shirts....I think this is the correct stance. Discourage politics integration is the right way forward. Totally disagree with your post on what players think with regards to race and homosexuality etc, because it's quite easy......can anyone name one potential player that can't get a contract because of their sexuality? Or race? And to reiterate, if Kilgour was gay, McCormick a racist and Westbrooke a alcoholic, are you seriously expecting no one to cheer their goals...? The basic rule is if you're good enough, you're always going to be in demand whatever your demeanor, even to the extent if you have transgressed the law. Sport is non discriminatory because it's based on ability.I'm not saying I agree with politics intervening in sport. I am saying though that it is inevitable as life is not as neatly compartmentalised as you seem to think. I really don't understand the point you are trying to make above. Are you really saying that black players are never discriminated against in professional football? That they are always treated equally as white players? Seriously? So Anton Ferdinand etc are just making s*** up? How do you explain the dearth of BAME managers in the game? Based on ability, so BAME players are less able than white? Why have no players come out of the closet? Is that because there are no homosexual footballers or might it be that the culture and prejudice within football dissuades them from doing so? They'd undoubtedly get slaughtered on the terraces. Re our club, I'd have absolutely no issue with an openly homosexual player as quite frankly it is no-one else's business. I would not want a racist anywhere near our club as to me it is abhorrent. An alcoholic may have issues with fitness and training etc, but as long as they were doing the business on the field that wouldn't bother me either. I would hope however that the club would help and support them though as alcoholism is a terrible disease. I think there is plenty of evidence of discrimination in football, and you don't have to scratch the surface too far to find it. Alot of questions there! Politics is involved in sport, but if you are not saying you agree with the integration, we ironically are agreeing aren't we? And you're exactly correct (are we agreeing again?!) it's personal with no one's business regarding sexuality, why can't it be the same regarding someone's politics? Perhaps some players have felt very uncomfortable taking the knee and forcing to comply or publicly risk being branded racist? The point I'm making is: if you are the best footballer in the world, it doesn't matter what you look like, believe in, live lifestyle, you'll be in demand...so by it's very nature, competitive sport is non discriminatory. Peter Beardsley, Carlos Tevez and Ronaldo aren't the prettiest but they've carved out a career in football. Does that mean there aren't individuals involved in the game that aren't bigotted? No, of course not. Unfortunately, that's life. And I'm afraid will always be. Your post of bame switches from players to managers, and that's a slightly different dynamic. Players are solely responsible for their ability and preservation of that, when you're a manager so many variables affect your ability. I don't know would be an honest answer, but I would keep open mind that just because the stats don't stack up doesn't automatically mean it's discrimination. There has to be more evidence researched on this. We've had black manager before, Garry Thompson....all I can say is if he had been any good we would have kept him or he would have gone on to bigger and better things....he wasn't dismissed because of what his appearance - he wasn't selected because of his appearance - I'm trying to expand this to most clubs. John Barnes is an interesting example. He was given one of the most prestigious jobs in UK football, Celtic manager job, and it didn't work out. I think his heritage had nothing to do with it.... similar with many clubs appointment of Paul Ince, Sol Campbell, Chris Powell, Edgar David's etc....
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,123
|
Post by eppinggas on Dec 16, 2020 10:35:16 GMT
I also speak German but maybe more than passable. Lived and worked there for close to 3.5 years. As you say, years ahead, better standard of living and people are warm and very friendly , on the whole. I would have stayed if not for my parents getting sick and needing care. It’s something I regret to this day. I expected people to be aggressive and the reality was the polar opposite. I absolutely love the country Where in Germany did you live KP? I lived for 4 years in Munich between 96 and 2000 - fabulous experience and standard of living. I too changed my mind on the Germans after experiencing reality. If I were to stereotype, I would say they are generally very earnest, and stick to the promises they make. The antics of the Government with the Internal Market bill will not have played out well in Berlin. They also like the British sense of humour, try to emulate it and often don't succeed. I made good friends there and we had some especially kind and dear neighbours. We lived in a suburb of Munich (population 20000) with its own pro football team, who were playing about 10 leagues above where their fanbase would merit them. They were in 2nd Bundesliga when I arrived and were perennial favourites for relegation. The year before I returned home, the unthinkable happened and they got promoted to the premier Bundesliga. First year up they gave all the big boys real problems - 6 points from Dortmund, 6 points from Stuttgart, gave Bayern two really close games, and on the last day of the season enabled Bayern to come from a long way back to win the league by beating Bayer Leverkusen 2-0. They had no stars (Albanian Altin Rrakili was the closest to a big name for them) but they worked incredibly hard, were organised and disciplined and became incredibly hard to beat. They ended up missing out on a European place by a point or two. Second season they got relegated but still managed to beat Bayern in the process. They've never seriously threatened to return to those heights and now ply their trade in the 3rd Bundesliga. Ralph Hasenhuttl earned his managerial spurs with them, and I am intrigued to see how well he is doing at Southampton. We were season ticket holders along with a number of other Brits. We were like minor celebrities, and their fans were amused and bemused in equal measure that they had this hard core group of us there. There was an Italian trattoria and beer garden attached to the ground, and the players would completely mingle with the fans afterward. I did several away trips with their fans including their away win at Stuttgart. One of my favourite memories was the home game against 1860 Munich. Ex s***head Paul Agostino was playing for them, and because it was a tight little ground, was clearly able to see my Rovers shirt and hear the dog's sbuse I heaped on him the whole game. b****** had the last laugh though by scoring a very late and undeserved equaliser. Brilliant times, and some really treasured memories. I never thought there would be room in my heart for a football team other than the Gas but they really got to me. I'd have been really torn if we played them competitively. The team? - Spielvereinigung Unterhaching. Give us the "s", "p", "i", etc etc. Great story!
|
|
|
Post by emperorsuperbus on Dec 17, 2020 10:31:36 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2020 15:08:16 GMT
Players are overwhelmingly in support of continuing to take a knee to highlight racial inequality and fight discrimination, says the Professional Footballers' Association. #BLM www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55360210
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Dec 20, 2020 17:37:25 GMT
I also speak German but maybe more than passable. Lived and worked there for close to 3.5 years. As you say, years ahead, better standard of living and people are warm and very friendly , on the whole. I would have stayed if not for my parents getting sick and needing care. It’s something I regret to this day. I expected people to be aggressive and the reality was the polar opposite. I absolutely love the country Where in Germany did you live KP? I lived for 4 years in Munich between 96 and 2000 - fabulous experience and standard of living. I too changed my mind on the Germans after experiencing reality. If I were to stereotype, I would say they are generally very earnest, and stick to the promises they make. The antics of the Government with the Internal Market bill will not have played out well in Berlin. They also like the British sense of humour, try to emulate it and often don't succeed. I made good friends there and we had some especially kind and dear neighbours. We lived in a suburb of Munich (population 20000) with its own pro football team, who were playing about 10 leagues above where their fanbase would merit them. They were in 2nd Bundesliga when I arrived and were perennial favourites for relegation. The year before I returned home, the unthinkable happened and they got promoted to the premier Bundesliga. First year up they gave all the big boys real problems - 6 points from Dortmund, 6 points from Stuttgart, gave Bayern two really close games, and on the last day of the season enabled Bayern to come from a long way back to win the league by beating Bayer Leverkusen 2-0. They had no stars (Albanian Altin Rrakili was the closest to a big name for them) but they worked incredibly hard, were organised and disciplined and became incredibly hard to beat. They ended up missing out on a European place by a point or two. Second season they got relegated but still managed to beat Bayern in the process. They've never seriously threatened to return to those heights and now ply their trade in the 3rd Bundesliga. Ralph Hasenhuttl earned his managerial spurs with them, and I am intrigued to see how well he is doing at Southampton. We were season ticket holders along with a number of other Brits. We were like minor celebrities, and their fans were amused and bemused in equal measure that they had this hard core group of us there. There was an Italian trattoria and beer garden attached to the ground, and the players would completely mingle with the fans afterward. I did several away trips with their fans including their away win at Stuttgart. One of my favourite memories was the home game against 1860 Munich. Ex s***head Paul Agostino was playing for them, and because it was a tight little ground, was clearly able to see my Rovers shirt and hear the dog's sbuse I heaped on him the whole game. b****** had the last laugh though by scoring a very late and undeserved equaliser. Brilliant times, and some really treasured memories. I never thought there would be room in my heart for a football team other than the Gas but they really got to me. I'd have been really torn if we played them competitively. The team? - Spielvereinigung Unterhaching. Hi there Mrs V Smegma , Very long story, short. I did the aufweirdersein pet experience as I had been a brickies labourer for my two eldest brothers (RIP) And used to jump in & lay a few bricks and blocks. I had a longterm relationship split up and knew I was heading for times that I didn’t want my family to witness and so, in September 93, I just bought all the tools needed and basically ran away to Germany. I had friends there already and was picked up at Tiegel and then waited 10 days before meeting a group of Irish and Welsh brickies in Oscar Wilde’s pub, on friedrich strasse in Berlin. I worked all over eastern Germany but I was mostly in and around Berlin. I did spend time in Baden Baden as my German girlfriend lived their. I had over a year very close to Jena and Essen, in a place called Hermsdorf, a one pony town but very friendly people. My father warned me not to mention my polish heritage but, if anything, it saw me being treated even better. I found that most of the Germans spoke good English and that it became difficult, at times, to have someone to speak only in Germany with. I have not yet been to another country where I have been treated better and where the people have been been so warm. As I say, I was in the east of the country for over 95% of the time. I did get to visit cologne or Köln and found it to be very cosmopolitan in comparison to the places I had stayed. I only came back because my parents got old and ill and no one else would stand up and help them. I am positive I would have stayed, married and not come back, the standard of living was so much better too and it struck me just how clean it was, when I got back to Blighty. I could go on and on but, if you are interested then we can do so via the private message facility as there is much more to say. I love the country and it’s people.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Dec 20, 2020 18:00:04 GMT
Some of the best wines that I’ve sampled, have been from Chile. I have yet to see any holidays to that country though. It’s a shame more people don’t travel Chilean wine is generally very good, as is Argentinian (I particularly like wine made from the Torrontes grape), and Uruguayan is also on the up. I went to Chile after 6 months working in the Falkland Islands. Hitched a lift on a ship that the UK Government had chartered, and which had hit a rock and was being dry docked in Punta Arenas to remove the concrete in the front end that was keeping it afloat. Then backpacked with a mate all the way up through South America to Belize. An excellent experience in my formative years, which I'm unlikely to have the opportunity to repeat (sadly) Sounds like you have lived a very interesting life. Given the background I’m from, I consider myself well travelled but a couple of my friends did much more and have never came back to Britain. I now wish I’d have had the fortitude to go with them. Regrets ? I’ve had a few
|
|
|
Post by emperorsuperbus on Dec 24, 2020 22:23:14 GMT
The f*ckwits and racists seemed to have recently received Facebook medicine degrees, followed in days with virology and epidemiology doctorates from Google, and give the impression they have received all four volumes of Das Kapital in their cornflakes today. I'll wager my pocket-money that the majority of those booing at Millwall, have no evidence that BLM is Marxist-led, and could not define (without Googling) Marxism. I'll start: Very basically ( I can get much, much more Daedalian with regard to Marxism), and over-simplifying Marxism, it usually means analyzing social change through an economic lens, with the assumption that the rich and the poor should become more equal; oh, and plenty of booing footballers who kneel for a couple of seconds before a football match to show support for "black lives" - all very straightforward, really. Old Trot/Marxist here...#UTG I’m not a fan of Marxism. In practice just simplistic blend of capitalism and nationalism for nihilists. Appreciate root is nationalism, and bud capitalism on route to the fruit. But in ignorance of localism the fruit was always to be unattainable in a Kafkaesque way. Care to see “my critique” before commenting on this statement? I’m confident I will convince and entertain you. 🙂 What am I doing in this old thread? I’ll tell you what, the TV is pretty rubbish today isn’t it? I left a question in here. But fair enough. So you don’t care to see to see my critique of Marxist-Leninism 😜 No worries. it won’t be as fun as charades I confess. I will post it anyway. In three bite size chunks. Make yourself comfortable. And even if my conclusions don’t convince, and Marxists remain Marxists, I’ll see if I can muster enough writing talent to at least entertain and stimulate everyone’s vegetating grey matter whilst we await team news. So what this is then. With a maze, a cheeseboard, and one of the most infamous train journeys in history, I will explain the cosy relationship Marxism and Capitalism enjoyed all along. And it should become quite clear why I am not a Marxist. Part 1. The graveyard draws the living still. Before us stands an ethereal hedge maze, metaphor not for a difficult path but one with places for meditation and reflection. Rig for the gig is The Magic Roundabout, so follow me into this puzzle like the rambling Ermatrude you are. Be aware, as I mumble on about revisionist history. According to Wikipedia, historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record, challenging accepted views held by professional scholars about historical event, reinterpreting motivations and decisions of the people involved. Why would a revisionist approach towards Marxism and Capitalism be needed? From Bolshevik revolution in Russia till the end of the civil war our nation supported the Whites. Throughout the life of the Soviet Union, much of it was west v east Cold War, and we would agree, in any war, truth is the first casualty? Crunch. Frost has glistened old snow under your feet. A gentle fall rustles the evergreens as a brambling ascends. Stop. To your left to you right, you stand amidst gravestones. In the shadows here the breeze blows cold, but their voices passionate on the wind still, their thoughts echo through time ...no society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which far greater part of the members are poor and miserable... philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it... once the state has been founded, there can no longer be any heroes - they come on the scene only in uncivilized conditions.... what experience and history teaches us, people and governments have never learned from history, or acted on principles deduced from it... To your left Karl Marx, to your right Adam Smith and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Sometimes Hegel reads like something alive in both the Third Reich and Stalinist Russia. I have hired Oswald Moseley from Peaky Blinders to deliver this quote. “The State subsumes family and civil society and fulfills them, an individual's supreme duty is to be a member of the state, and when required lay down their life for the state". Will it come as surprise leftist followers of Hegel such as Marx and Engels started out known as Young Hegelians? There should be a tailors dummy here, very much part of this history, but someone has moved it, they think it belongs elsewhere. So I ask you, when you think of economic liberalism, Adam Smith, the Manchester school, do you think of liassez faire capitalism, it’s opposition to economic orders like socialism and the old USSR? If so, to appreciate economic liberalisms radical youth, its comrades in arms in 1848, its foes of that nineteenth century period, I ask you to think again. Let’s go to 1848. Economic liberalism as a revolutionary movement promoting pacifism, anti-slavery, freedom of the press and separation of church and state whilst chief of those original adversary’s economic liberalism born to battle were mercantilism and feudalism. Marx and Engels published their communist manifesto in German in London in February 1848. But what we call the revolutions of 1848 was consequence of rising tide of liberalism, not communism as we would know it. Communism to many in 1848, such as the French Mother of Anarchy Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and German revolutionary (and composer) Richard Wagner, sits under Hegelian term Aufhebung “negation of egoism”. Communist may mean something different to Marx and Lenin, certainly Karl Marx and Richard Wagner wont agree on everything, Marx later called out the falsification of primitive times which dominates Wagner’s Nibelungen text, whereas Proudhon rejected Marx's views on revolution: "I believe we have no need of it in order to succeed; consequently we should not put forward revolutionary action as a means of social reform because that pretended means would simply be an appeal to force, in brief, a contradiction". The internet is poor if you want to know where communism really came from, because internet ignores the Guardians in Plato's Republic, ignores that it is communism in the line of fire of Thomas Moore's Utopia (1516), even the voluntary communism Christ imposed on his disciples, you'll find the internet skips straight to a modern definition developed by young Hegelians (even though French writers were using the word pre Hegel and just perhaps it means something else to them) internet search repeats itself everywhere as it frustratingly does when you feel its missing something. To avoid getting lost in this maze we must start with open mind what the communist label meant on crest of this revolutionary wave 1848, especially to revolutionary Hegelian’s of right and left standing shoulder to shoulder with each other for more liberal democracy. I suggest in the liberal revolution 1848 the term communist meant something more liberal to them than to us here in 21st century post our cold war. Melding proletariat and the bourgeoisie circles, capitalists and communists could stand together as brothers in arms in 1848 against old monarchical structures and nobility, for the abolition of serfdom and creation of independent nation-states under representative democracy. For those of you dressed as Brian: on, mollusc. On to Part Two: A Tale of Two Cheeses.
|
|
|
Post by emperorsuperbus on Dec 24, 2020 22:29:14 GMT
I’m not a fan of Marxism. In practice just simplistic blend of capitalism and nationalism for nihilists. Appreciate root is nationalism, and bud capitalism on route to the fruit. But in ignorance of localism the fruit was always to be unattainable in a Kafkaesque way. Care to see “my critique” before commenting on this statement? I’m confident I will convince and entertain you. 🙂 What am I doing in this old thread? I’ll tell you what, the TV is pretty rubbish today isn’t it? I left a question in here. But fair enough. So you don’t care to see to see my critique of Marxist-Leninism 😜 No worries. it won’t be as fun as charades I confess. I will post it anyway. In three bite size chunks. Make yourself comfortable. And even if my conclusions don’t convince, and Marxists remain Marxists, I’ll see if I can muster enough writing talent to at least entertain and stimulate everyone’s vegetating grey matter whilst we await team news. So what this is then. With a maze, a cheeseboard, and one of the most infamous train journeys in history, I will explain the cosy relationship Marxism and Capitalism enjoyed all along. And it should become quite clear why I am not a Marxist. Part 1. The graveyard draws the living still. Before us stands an ethereal hedge maze, metaphor not for a difficult path but one with places for meditation and reflection. Rig for the gig is The Magic Roundabout, so follow me into this puzzle like the rambling Ermatrude you are. Be aware, as I mumble on about revisionist history. According to Wikipedia, historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record, challenging accepted views held by professional scholars about historical event, reinterpreting motivations and decisions of the people involved. Why would a revisionist approach towards Marxism and Capitalism be needed? From Bolshevik revolution in Russia till the end of the civil war our nation supported the Whites. Throughout the life of the Soviet Union, much of it was west v east Cold War, and we would agree, in any war, truth is the first casualty? Crunch. Frost has glistened old snow under your feet. A gentle fall rustles the evergreens as a brambling ascends. Stop. To your left to you right, you stand amidst gravestones. In the shadows here the breeze blows cold, but their voices passionate on the wind still, their thoughts echo through time ...no society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which far greater part of the members are poor and miserable... philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it... once the state has been founded, there can no longer be any heroes - they come on the scene only in uncivilized conditions.... what experience and history teaches us, people and governments have never learned from history, or acted on principles deduced from it... To your left Karl Marx, to your right Adam Smith and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Sometimes Hegel reads like something alive in both the Third Reich and Stalinist Russia. I have hired Oswald Moseley from Peaky Blinders to deliver this quote. “The State subsumes family and civil society and fulfills them, an individual's supreme duty is to be a member of the state, and when required lay down their life for the state". Will it come as surprise leftist followers of Hegel such as Marx and Engels started out known as Young Hegelians? There should be a tailors dummy here, very much part of this history, but someone has moved it, they think it belongs elsewhere. So I ask you, when you think of economic liberalism, Adam Smith, the Manchester school, do you think of liassez faire capitalism, it’s opposition to economic orders like socialism and the old USSR? If so, to appreciate economic liberalisms radical youth, its comrades in arms in 1848, its foes of that nineteenth century period, I ask you to think again. Let’s go to 1848. Economic liberalism as a revolutionary movement promoting pacifism, anti-slavery, freedom of the press and separation of church and state whilst chief of those original adversary’s economic liberalism born to battle were mercantilism and feudalism. Marx and Engels published their communist manifesto in German in London in February 1848. But what we call the revolutions of 1848 was consequence of rising tide of liberalism, not communism as we would know it. Communism to many in 1848, such as the French Mother of Anarchy Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and German revolutionary (and composer) Richard Wagner, sits under Hegelian term Aufhebung “negation of egoism”. Communist may mean something different to Marx and Lenin, certainly Karl Marx and Richard Wagner wont agree on everything, Marx later called out the falsification of primitive times which dominates Wagner’s Nibelungen text, whereas Proudhon rejected Marx's views on revolution: "I believe we have no need of it in order to succeed; consequently we should not put forward revolutionary action as a means of social reform because that pretended means would simply be an appeal to force, in brief, a contradiction". The internet is poor if you want to know where communism really came from, because internet ignores the Guardians in Plato's Republic, ignores that it is communism in the line of fire of Thomas Moore's Utopia (1516), even the voluntary communism Christ imposed on his disciples, you'll find the internet skips straight to a modern definition developed by young Hegelians (even though French writers were using the word pre Hegel and just perhaps it means something else to them) internet search repeats itself everywhere as it frustratingly does when you feel its missing something. To avoid getting lost in this maze we must start with open mind what the communist label meant on crest of this revolutionary wave 1848, especially to revolutionary Hegelian’s of right and left standing shoulder to shoulder with each other for more liberal democracy. I suggest in the liberal revolution 1848 the term communist meant something more liberal to them than to us here in 21st century post our cold war. Melding proletariat and the bourgeoisie circles, capitalists and communists could stand together as brothers in arms in 1848 against old monarchical structures and nobility, for the abolition of serfdom and creation of independent nation-states under representative democracy. For those of you dressed as Brian: on, mollusc. On to Part Two: A Tale of Two Cheeses. Part 2. A Tale of Two Cheeses. As we journey through this maze the seasons evolve around us. The diamond glisten of the sunrise thaws to russet carpet on a March morning and earliest buds of the year. The bud disappears when blossom breaks through, we might say the former is refuted by the latter, in same way when fruit comes, blossom explained to be false form of this plant’s existence for the fruit appears true nature in place of the blossom. The ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes these stages moments of organic unity, they do not contradict one another, one as necessary as the other and constitutes thereby life of the whole. Such is the maze and the journey. Still no tailors dummy, but here a ball of rosy yarn from a spinning mule. Robert Owen (1771 -1858) socialist pioneer one of the founders of the cooperative movement and of nursery schools. He opposed system of competition how he saw capitalism, and wanted to create with a model factory, a model community based on co-operation between people. Owen believed a person's character is formed by effects of their environment, placing people in conditions worthy of human beings, especially by carefully bringing up the younger generation; if a community shared everything and made communal decisions, social evils would be eradicated. Clearest distinction between Owen and Young Hegelians is Owen's absence of revolt, such as to remove the class system. Marx was critical there could exist a situation that would promote class unity, if Owen dreamt merely of class unity so his socialism lacked real basis. Also to Marx, Owen's socialism was based upon commercial calculation, initial investors to receive anything Marx will declare wrong. Maybe Utopian was applied to the wrong group? We come to a seated alcove with canopy to escape rain showers. Upon the wooden table, a cheeseboard, upon it Roquefort cheese, slices of tomato and olive bread, a 12 year old balsamic vinegar from Modena, and an onion and fig jam. I always find Roquefort salty, so I asked Dylan to roll in a block of Stilton. The Great British Blue the Great French Blue. Do they look similar at first glance? These two cheeses are not nearly the same, milk of different beasts, different rinds, porcelain flesh versus eggnog in colours, cream versus crumble in texture. Marx and Engels admitted in print, as continentals their philosophy grated with British prejudices. For prejudice I say read taste. Marxism claims to be founded upon contemporary economic activity, and at this time it is Capitalism. But Capitalism all same colour, texture, smell and taste, or like a cheeseboard a comparison between flavours? The period of Marx’s work is full of contrast, parts of Europe still feudal with serfs in slavery, elsewhere liberalism addressed downsides of such society, in places socialism addressing downsides of capitalism. Does localism await a one taste suits all solution? Furthermore our cheeseboard definition of socialism is a varied picture. Before Young Hegelians brought a more modern, idealistic (salty) definition here, Classic British Liberal Philosophy has defined socialism with subtler flavours, leather and woodsiness of Britannic Stilton, thus Historical Materialism as the pseudo science cannot possess all magic for us. When you prefer taste of Stilton why would you have nowt but Roquefort? Do you adapt when locals don’t like taste so are not buying it? What I am describing is neither Capitalism or Marxism as ideologies transcending culture, fully supplanting culture with their own. They always go from place to place adopting subtle flavours of each like a chameleon, so its still never their place. Yes, sure, power to abolish kings, burn parliaments, airbrush photo’s, rewrite history, even take an entire class of intelligentsia into a basement from where it does not return. But always the graveyard draws the living still. And amongst the gravestones, what any revolution throws away with the bath water lives on for us to appreciate what has been lost. In game of taste, the last one standing on a cheeseboard is not necessarily the winner. Somewhere close is Switzerland, through the maze we hear call of a steam locomotive. Okay Florence, to the station.
|
|
|
Post by emperorsuperbus on Dec 24, 2020 22:46:10 GMT
What am I doing in this old thread? I’ll tell you what, the TV is pretty rubbish today isn’t it? I left a question in here. But fair enough. So you don’t care to see to see my critique of Marxist-Leninism 😜 No worries. it won’t be as fun as charades I confess. I will post it anyway. In three bite size chunks. Make yourself comfortable. And even if my conclusions don’t convince, and Marxists remain Marxists, I’ll see if I can muster enough writing talent to at least entertain and stimulate everyone’s vegetating grey matter whilst we await team news. So what this is then. With a maze, a cheeseboard, and one of the most infamous train journeys in history, I will explain the cosy relationship Marxism and Capitalism enjoyed all along. And it should become quite clear why I am not a Marxist. Part 1. The graveyard draws the living still. Before us stands an ethereal hedge maze, metaphor not for a difficult path but one with places for meditation and reflection. Rig for the gig is The Magic Roundabout, so follow me into this puzzle like the rambling Ermatrude you are. Be aware, as I mumble on about revisionist history. According to Wikipedia, historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record, challenging accepted views held by professional scholars about historical event, reinterpreting motivations and decisions of the people involved. Why would a revisionist approach towards Marxism and Capitalism be needed? From Bolshevik revolution in Russia till the end of the civil war our nation supported the Whites. Throughout the life of the Soviet Union, much of it was west v east Cold War, and we would agree, in any war, truth is the first casualty? Crunch. Frost has glistened old snow under your feet. A gentle fall rustles the evergreens as a brambling ascends. Stop. To your left to you right, you stand amidst gravestones. In the shadows here the breeze blows cold, but their voices passionate on the wind still, their thoughts echo through time ...no society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which far greater part of the members are poor and miserable... philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it... once the state has been founded, there can no longer be any heroes - they come on the scene only in uncivilized conditions.... what experience and history teaches us, people and governments have never learned from history, or acted on principles deduced from it... To your left Karl Marx, to your right Adam Smith and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Sometimes Hegel reads like something alive in both the Third Reich and Stalinist Russia. I have hired Oswald Moseley from Peaky Blinders to deliver this quote. “The State subsumes family and civil society and fulfills them, an individual's supreme duty is to be a member of the state, and when required lay down their life for the state". Will it come as surprise leftist followers of Hegel such as Marx and Engels started out known as Young Hegelians? There should be a tailors dummy here, very much part of this history, but someone has moved it, they think it belongs elsewhere. So I ask you, when you think of economic liberalism, Adam Smith, the Manchester school, do you think of liassez faire capitalism, it’s opposition to economic orders like socialism and the old USSR? If so, to appreciate economic liberalisms radical youth, its comrades in arms in 1848, its foes of that nineteenth century period, I ask you to think again. Let’s go to 1848. Economic liberalism as a revolutionary movement promoting pacifism, anti-slavery, freedom of the press and separation of church and state whilst chief of those original adversary’s economic liberalism born to battle were mercantilism and feudalism. Marx and Engels published their communist manifesto in German in London in February 1848. But what we call the revolutions of 1848 was consequence of rising tide of liberalism, not communism as we would know it. Communism to many in 1848, such as the French Mother of Anarchy Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and German revolutionary (and composer) Richard Wagner, sits under Hegelian term Aufhebung “negation of egoism”. Communist may mean something different to Marx and Lenin, certainly Karl Marx and Richard Wagner wont agree on everything, Marx later called out the falsification of primitive times which dominates Wagner’s Nibelungen text, whereas Proudhon rejected Marx's views on revolution: "I believe we have no need of it in order to succeed; consequently we should not put forward revolutionary action as a means of social reform because that pretended means would simply be an appeal to force, in brief, a contradiction". The internet is poor if you want to know where communism really came from, because internet ignores the Guardians in Plato's Republic, ignores that it is communism in the line of fire of Thomas Moore's Utopia (1516), even the voluntary communism Christ imposed on his disciples, you'll find the internet skips straight to a modern definition developed by young Hegelians (even though French writers were using the word pre Hegel and just perhaps it means something else to them) internet search repeats itself everywhere as it frustratingly does when you feel its missing something. To avoid getting lost in this maze we must start with open mind what the communist label meant on crest of this revolutionary wave 1848, especially to revolutionary Hegelian’s of right and left standing shoulder to shoulder with each other for more liberal democracy. I suggest in the liberal revolution 1848 the term communist meant something more liberal to them than to us here in 21st century post our cold war. Melding proletariat and the bourgeoisie circles, capitalists and communists could stand together as brothers in arms in 1848 against old monarchical structures and nobility, for the abolition of serfdom and creation of independent nation-states under representative democracy. For those of you dressed as Brian: on, mollusc. On to Part Two: A Tale of Two Cheeses. Part 2. A Tale of Two Cheeses. As we journey through this maze the seasons evolve around us. The diamond glisten of the sunrise thaws to russet carpet on a March morning and earliest buds of the year. The bud disappears when blossom breaks through, we might say the former is refuted by the latter, in same way when fruit comes, blossom explained to be false form of this plant’s existence for the fruit appears true nature in place of the blossom. The ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes these stages moments of organic unity, they do not contradict one another, one as necessary as the other and constitutes thereby life of the whole. Such is the maze and the journey. Still no tailors dummy, but here a ball of rosy yarn from a spinning mule. Robert Owen (1771 -1858) socialist pioneer one of the founders of the cooperative movement and of nursery schools. He opposed system of competition how he saw capitalism, and wanted to create with a model factory, a model community based on co-operation between people. Owen believed a person's character is formed by effects of their environment, placing people in conditions worthy of human beings, especially by carefully bringing up the younger generation; if a community shared everything and made communal decisions, social evils would be eradicated. Clearest distinction between Owen and Young Hegelians is Owen's absence of revolt, such as to remove the class system. Marx was critical there could exist a situation that would promote class unity, if Owen dreamt merely of class unity so his socialism lacked real basis. Also to Marx, Owen's socialism was based upon commercial calculation, initial investors to receive anything Marx will declare wrong. Maybe Utopian was applied to the wrong group? We come to a seated alcove with canopy to escape rain showers. Upon the wooden table, a cheeseboard, upon it Roquefort cheese, slices of tomato and olive bread, a 12 year old balsamic vinegar from Modena, and an onion and fig jam. I always find Roquefort salty, so I asked Dylan to roll in a block of Stilton. The Great British Blue the Great French Blue. Do they look similar at first glance? These two cheeses are not nearly the same, milk of different beasts, different rinds, porcelain flesh versus eggnog in colours, cream versus crumble in texture. Marx and Engels admitted in print, as continentals their philosophy grated with British prejudices. For prejudice I say read taste. Marxism claims to be founded upon contemporary economic activity, and at this time it is Capitalism. But Capitalism all same colour, texture, smell and taste, or like a cheeseboard a comparison between flavours? The period of Marx’s work is full of contrast, parts of Europe still feudal with serfs in slavery, elsewhere liberalism addressed downsides of such society, in places socialism addressing downsides of capitalism. Does localism await a one taste suits all solution? Furthermore our cheeseboard definition of socialism is a varied picture. Before Young Hegelians brought a more modern, idealistic (salty) definition here, Classic British Liberal Philosophy has defined socialism with subtler flavours, leather and woodsiness of Britannic Stilton, thus Historical Materialism as the pseudo science cannot possess all magic for us. When you prefer taste of Stilton why would you have nowt but Roquefort? Do you adapt when locals don’t like taste so are not buying it? What I am describing is neither Capitalism or Marxism as ideologies transcending culture, fully supplanting culture with their own. They always go from place to place adopting subtle flavours of each like a chameleon, so its still never their place. Yes, sure, power to abolish kings, burn parliaments, airbrush photo’s, rewrite history, even take an entire class of intelligentsia into a basement from where it does not return. But always the graveyard draws the living still. And amongst the gravestones, what any revolution throws away with the bath water lives on for us to appreciate what has been lost. In game of taste, the last one standing on a cheeseboard is not necessarily the winner. Somewhere close is Switzerland, through the maze we hear call of a steam locomotive. Okay Florence, to the station. Part 3. Lenin’s Low Hanging Fruits In this part of our maze Spring is in the air (I don’t just mean you Zeberdee). It is April 1917. We are on a train travelling from Zurich to Russia, via Berlin, Sweden, Finland. Okay not just one train, a ferry at some point too, it’s not all first class I assure you, this hard bench I’ve been allocated in third class is playing havoc with my rhoids. A train laid on for diplomatic reasons is known as a sealed train, someone chalked something on the doors in German to indicate as such. The reason: the cargo of this train is one of the leaders of the Russian Social Democrats; following abdication of the Tsar the interim Social Democratic government in Russia declared amnesty for political exiles to return, Vlad the Social Democrat (who adopted an alias in 1901 from the river Lena) is itching to get back. But this train only possible for mischief against foe they are at war with, Germany keen to deposit Vlad in Russia at this time. What could possibly go wrong? Oooouch. When it stops in Berlin, think I’ll nip off for a comforting kissen. On his sealed train Vlad writes of Russia as an agricultural country, one of the most backward of Europe, he plans to take Russia away from feudalism with a revolution. Where orthodox and rather romantic history would have us believe Lenin’s target is the rise of industrial capitalism in Russia, the plight of peasants in their move to cities, Lenin’s thinking is still in earlier ideas and influences: look at what Lenin has written, on this train. hewrote of his Capitalist Revolution. Surely he meant to write Communist revolution? Has your view been of a man seeking to usurp capitalism in Russia with communism? I contend the feudalism still alive in Russia is Lenin’s actual target, his weapon an understanding economic liberalism of capitalism frees the individual from Feudalism just like the aim was back in 1848, allows worker to aspire to ownership not accept slavery; and don’t forget through Lenin’s love of Marx comes Hegel, the concept of Nation State travels here. In Lenin’s mind, in this rickety carriage, long outstanding revolution travels to Russia, an aged barrel of Heineken off to reach those parts 1848 never reached. When he gets off the last train in Petrograd, Lenin is going to lay into his comrades from the bolshinstvo (a word meaning majority, though this use is spin they barely are the majority grouping) for working with the provisional Government and bringing calm instead of revolution to Russian politics, because in doing so they sustain status quo of backward feudalism: something capitalists of the Manchester School, Hegel, rightist & leftist Hegelians, and Lenin all despise as slavery. Lenin will be so shouty about this so many in his own Social Democratic party will view him not as a socialist or Marxist anymore, merely a power mad anarchist. But with full grist of a capitalist century now blowing wind into his revolution and fight against feudalism, how could Lenin fail to sweep away feudalism and make St Petersburg the latest Manchester School by the sea? So our maze leads us to the tailors dummy. We are in Manchester, its early June, of course we feel underdressed and wished we brought a coat. Viewed from our Capitalist paradise today, if broad church of views in Russia in April 1917 simply known to us as communist revolution, are we losing touch with important nuance of political history, seeing only fruit not buds and blossom of the plants organic journey? I claim For us to know 1917 we need to understand its budding before 1848, the blossom of revolution of capitalism to parts unfashionably feudal, before the fruit was supposed to come along. And to some degree, due to Marx and Lenin’s philosophy’s failure to adapt to localism, so instead it’s over reliance and Nationalism and Hegels Nation State, as they had been warned by Proudhon at the very start, what they were calling for and engaged in was a contradiction that could never reach the fruit stage. To learn lesson for our future, is ours a history where the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics was never socialist or even communist? Do you think China communist today, with the amount of millionaires and billionaires it has? Or nationalist? China is an example of lost on its journey between the blossom and the fruit. And why did they get lost? To learn lessons from history we must recognise Nation State as ideology. We question 19th & 20thC ideology such as capitalism, Marxism, yet we believe in ‘sovereignty pooling’ institutions such as United Nations, NATO, the EU, international laws set by Nation States, do we give this ideology enough scrutiny and criticism? Can you be part of a nation and not share the same language? In 1789 barely half the French people spoke some French, so arguably the state made the French nation, not French nationalism, at Italian unification the number of people speaking the Italian language was even lower. Can you have members of a Nation-state outside its borders, or put another way does the state actually have a border or are you a member through culture? To what degree must minorities assimilate to culture to have state membership and rights? What of people with culture without common territory or economic life, without objective material prerequisites to form a separate nation-state? Now at centre of the maze we rise toward a maligned old flag. We appreciate this flag appears battle weary, it’s witnessed a lot of fighting down the years. Reaching our hilltop we survey this maze, out there older feudalism and mercantilism yielding to younger capitalism, Marxism and Socialisms who grew up together and forever bicker. Looking from where we are with an open mind, is it really such a puzzle? Marx and Lenin didn't invent communism, what they forged was in fire of the Capitalist and Industrial revolutions, dating back no further; and merely dress Economic Liberalism as in a parlour game you would easily guess a Young Hegelian would. Much like China is dressed today. There philosophy stuck there in time. The very thing fought against back in the ‘nineteenth century. Yet there is socialism with no need for class revolution; older ideas and meanings of communism before ideology of both capitalism and nation state came to influence Young Hegelians. Go to Hegel quoted earlier by our Oswald Mosely and benchmark with Owens socialism, and others who never sought revolution or incorporate such nationalist ideology into their ideas. Owen was socialist but acting with owner and workers everywhere in cooperatives, throughout the world, something you can get on with whatever time or place, and without a class revolution, across all borders without confronting or wrestling laws of society, or trial limits of states nationalism, simply by embracing localism. Economic Liberalism may have been much more radical in Nineteenth Century than appreciated today, Marxism less revolutionary than history books suggest. Do we challenge enough the history we are told? For reasons of innate political bias, will history books and explosion of history on the web give us true history? Or is our shared history we can learn from, build upon, lying forsaken from us beneath abandoned memes and on monuments of graveyards. Merry Christmas. Whatever you are whatever you believe in, I hope you enjoy good holidays. 🥂.
|
|
|
Post by emperorsuperbus on Dec 31, 2020 13:10:04 GMT
Part 2. A Tale of Two Cheeses. As we journey through this maze the seasons evolve around us. The diamond glisten of the sunrise thaws to russet carpet on a March morning and earliest buds of the year. The bud disappears when blossom breaks through, we might say the former is refuted by the latter, in same way when fruit comes, blossom explained to be false form of this plant’s existence for the fruit appears true nature in place of the blossom. The ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes these stages moments of organic unity, they do not contradict one another, one as necessary as the other and constitutes thereby life of the whole. Such is the maze and the journey. Still no tailors dummy, but here a ball of rosy yarn from a spinning mule. Robert Owen (1771 -1858) socialist pioneer one of the founders of the cooperative movement and of nursery schools. He opposed system of competition how he saw capitalism, and wanted to create with a model factory, a model community based on co-operation between people. Owen believed a person's character is formed by effects of their environment, placing people in conditions worthy of human beings, especially by carefully bringing up the younger generation; if a community shared everything and made communal decisions, social evils would be eradicated. Clearest distinction between Owen and Young Hegelians is Owen's absence of revolt, such as to remove the class system. Marx was critical there could exist a situation that would promote class unity, if Owen dreamt merely of class unity so his socialism lacked real basis. Also to Marx, Owen's socialism was based upon commercial calculation, initial investors to receive anything Marx will declare wrong. Maybe Utopian was applied to the wrong group? We come to a seated alcove with canopy to escape rain showers. Upon the wooden table, a cheeseboard, upon it Roquefort cheese, slices of tomato and olive bread, a 12 year old balsamic vinegar from Modena, and an onion and fig jam. I always find Roquefort salty, so I asked Dylan to roll in a block of Stilton. The Great British Blue the Great French Blue. Do they look similar at first glance? These two cheeses are not nearly the same, milk of different beasts, different rinds, porcelain flesh versus eggnog in colours, cream versus crumble in texture. Marx and Engels admitted in print, as continentals their philosophy grated with British prejudices. For prejudice I say read taste. Marxism claims to be founded upon contemporary economic activity, and at this time it is Capitalism. But Capitalism all same colour, texture, smell and taste, or like a cheeseboard a comparison between flavours? The period of Marx’s work is full of contrast, parts of Europe still feudal with serfs in slavery, elsewhere liberalism addressed downsides of such society, in places socialism addressing downsides of capitalism. Does localism await a one taste suits all solution? Furthermore our cheeseboard definition of socialism is a varied picture. Before Young Hegelians brought a more modern, idealistic (salty) definition here, Classic British Liberal Philosophy has defined socialism with subtler flavours, leather and woodsiness of Britannic Stilton, thus Historical Materialism as the pseudo science cannot possess all magic for us. When you prefer taste of Stilton why would you have nowt but Roquefort? Do you adapt when locals don’t like taste so are not buying it? What I am describing is neither Capitalism or Marxism as ideologies transcending culture, fully supplanting culture with their own. They always go from place to place adopting subtle flavours of each like a chameleon, so its still never their place. Yes, sure, power to abolish kings, burn parliaments, airbrush photo’s, rewrite history, even take an entire class of intelligentsia into a basement from where it does not return. But always the graveyard draws the living still. And amongst the gravestones, what any revolution throws away with the bath water lives on for us to appreciate what has been lost. In game of taste, the last one standing on a cheeseboard is not necessarily the winner. Somewhere close is Switzerland, through the maze we hear call of a steam locomotive. Okay Florence, to the station. Part 3. Lenin’s Low Hanging Fruits In this part of our maze Spring is in the air (I don’t just mean you Zeberdee). It is April 1917. We are on a train travelling from Zurich to Russia, via Berlin, Sweden, Finland. Okay not just one train, a ferry at some point too, it’s not all first class I assure you, this hard bench I’ve been allocated in third class is playing havoc with my rhoids. A train laid on for diplomatic reasons is known as a sealed train, someone chalked something on the doors in German to indicate as such. The reason: the cargo of this train is one of the leaders of the Russian Social Democrats; following abdication of the Tsar the interim Social Democratic government in Russia declared amnesty for political exiles to return, Vlad the Social Democrat (who adopted an alias in 1901 from the river Lena) is itching to get back. But this train only possible for mischief against foe they are at war with, Germany keen to deposit Vlad in Russia at this time. What could possibly go wrong? Oooouch. When it stops in Berlin, think I’ll nip off for a comforting kissen. On his sealed train Vlad writes of Russia as an agricultural country, one of the most backward of Europe, he plans to take Russia away from feudalism with a revolution. Where orthodox and rather romantic history would have us believe Lenin’s target is the rise of industrial capitalism in Russia, the plight of peasants in their move to cities, Lenin’s thinking is still in earlier ideas and influences: look at what Lenin has written, on this train. hewrote of his Capitalist Revolution. Surely he meant to write Communist revolution? Has your view been of a man seeking to usurp capitalism in Russia with communism? I contend the feudalism still alive in Russia is Lenin’s actual target, his weapon an understanding economic liberalism of capitalism frees the individual from Feudalism just like the aim was back in 1848, allows worker to aspire to ownership not accept slavery; and don’t forget through Lenin’s love of Marx comes Hegel, the concept of Nation State travels here. In Lenin’s mind, in this rickety carriage, long outstanding revolution travels to Russia, an aged barrel of Heineken off to reach those parts 1848 never reached. When he gets off the last train in Petrograd, Lenin is going to lay into his comrades from the bolshinstvo (a word meaning majority, though this use is spin they barely are the majority grouping) for working with the provisional Government and bringing calm instead of revolution to Russian politics, because in doing so they sustain status quo of backward feudalism: something capitalists of the Manchester School, Hegel, rightist & leftist Hegelians, and Lenin all despise as slavery. Lenin will be so shouty about this so many in his own Social Democratic party will view him not as a socialist or Marxist anymore, merely a power mad anarchist. But with full grist of a capitalist century now blowing wind into his revolution and fight against feudalism, how could Lenin fail to sweep away feudalism and make St Petersburg the latest Manchester School by the sea? So our maze leads us to the tailors dummy. We are in Manchester, its early June, of course we feel underdressed and wished we brought a coat. Viewed from our Capitalist paradise today, if broad church of views in Russia in April 1917 simply known to us as communist revolution, are we losing touch with important nuance of political history, seeing only fruit not buds and blossom of the plants organic journey? I claim For us to know 1917 we need to understand its budding before 1848, the blossom of revolution of capitalism to parts unfashionably feudal, before the fruit was supposed to come along. And to some degree, due to Marx and Lenin’s philosophy’s failure to adapt to localism, so instead it’s over reliance and Nationalism and Hegels Nation State, as they had been warned by Proudhon at the very start, what they were calling for and engaged in was a contradiction that could never reach the fruit stage. To learn lesson for our future, is ours a history where the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics was never socialist or even communist? Do you think China communist today, with the amount of millionaires and billionaires it has? Or nationalist? China is an example of lost on its journey between the blossom and the fruit. And why did they get lost? To learn lessons from history we must recognise Nation State as ideology. We question 19th & 20thC ideology such as capitalism, Marxism, yet we believe in ‘sovereignty pooling’ institutions such as United Nations, NATO, the EU, international laws set by Nation States, do we give this ideology enough scrutiny and criticism? Can you be part of a nation and not share the same language? In 1789 barely half the French people spoke some French, so arguably the state made the French nation, not French nationalism, at Italian unification the number of people speaking the Italian language was even lower. Can you have members of a Nation-state outside its borders, or put another way does the state actually have a border or are you a member through culture? To what degree must minorities assimilate to culture to have state membership and rights? What of people with culture without common territory or economic life, without objective material prerequisites to form a separate nation-state? Now at centre of the maze we rise toward a maligned old flag. We appreciate this flag appears battle weary, it’s witnessed a lot of fighting down the years. Reaching our hilltop we survey this maze, out there older feudalism and mercantilism yielding to younger capitalism, Marxism and Socialisms who grew up together and forever bicker. Looking from where we are with an open mind, is it really such a puzzle? Marx and Lenin didn't invent communism, what they forged was in fire of the Capitalist and Industrial revolutions, dating back no further; and merely dress Economic Liberalism as in a parlour game you would easily guess a Young Hegelian would. Much like China is dressed today. There philosophy stuck there in time. The very thing fought against back in the ‘nineteenth century. Yet there is socialism with no need for class revolution; older ideas and meanings of communism before ideology of both capitalism and nation state came to influence Young Hegelians. Go to Hegel quoted earlier by our Oswald Mosely and benchmark with Owens socialism, and others who never sought revolution or incorporate such nationalist ideology into their ideas. Owen was socialist but acting with owner and workers everywhere in cooperatives, throughout the world, something you can get on with whatever time or place, and without a class revolution, across all borders without confronting or wrestling laws of society, or trial limits of states nationalism, simply by embracing localism. Economic Liberalism may have been much more radical in Nineteenth Century than appreciated today, Marxism less revolutionary than history books suggest. Do we challenge enough the history we are told? For reasons of innate political bias, will history books and explosion of history on the web give us true history? Or is our shared history we can learn from, build upon, lying forsaken from us beneath abandoned memes and on monuments of graveyards. Merry Christmas. Whatever you are whatever you believe in, I hope you enjoy good holidays. 🥂. the cybermen got dear old darlo and deleted him? 😢 it wasn’t something I said was it? I’ll tell you this, I’ll double down on the Christmas telly being rubbish. 🧐
|
|