Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[ymu]

Me saying that someone's always going to take the piss/extract the labour value is not the same as saying that workers shouldn't contribute to the care of the young, old, infirm and impoverished. When I say someone's always going to take the piss/extract the labour value I mean that "someone" will always try and make a profit for themselves at the expense of the class.

That makes a lot more sense. That meaning didn't come across in the context of the post you quoted.

But yes, I agree. Any system which requires decent people to be in charge is doomed to fail.

 

[cesare]

That makes a lot more sense. That meaning didn't come across in the context of the post you quoted.

But yes, I agree. Any system which requires decent people to be in charge is doomed to fail.

Were you talking to me there?

 

[ymu]

Yeah, sorry. *shakes fist at spiney*

Edited for clarity.

 

[cesare]

Yeah, sorry. *shakes fist at spiney*

Edited for clarity.

OK. But I also don't agree that "any system which requires decent people to take charge is doomed to fail" either. Those are your words, not mine. What I *do* think is that Capitalism will continue to create a system of profit making at the expense of the working class, and that we should be very wary of dressing up benefits (and then concurrently witholding them plus demonising those that need them) as an acceptable alternative for fully paying for the labour produced by the working class.

 

[ymu]

OK. But I also don't agree that "any system which requires decent people to take charge is doomed to fail" either. Those are your words, not mine. What I *do* think is that Capitalism will continue to create a system of profit making at the expense of the working class, and that we should be very wary of dressing up benefits (and then concurrently witholding them plus demonising those that need them) as an acceptable alternative for fully paying for the labour produced by the working class.

Yes, they are my words. I was expanding on why I agree with you. The conclusion I draw from the inevitability of power being abused is that any system which requires decent people to be in charge is doomed to fail.

I can't see any of the things I'm talking about happening under capitalism anyway, but if I could ... I would not want to demand that parents be paid more because it would put them at a disadvantage relative to other workers, and I do think that the rest of society should financially support those who are bringing up the next generation that all of us will rely on in our old age. That means I'm stuck with something that looks a bit like child benefit.

 

[cesare]

Yes, they are my words. I was expanding on why I agree with you. The conclusion I draw from the inevitability of power being abused is that any system which requires decent people to be in charge is doomed to fail.

I can't see any of the things I'm talking about happening under capitalism anyway, but if I could ... I would not want to demand that parents be paid more because it would put them at a disadvantage relative to other workers, and I do think that the rest of society should financially support those who are bringing up the next generation that all of us will rely on in our old age. That means I'm stuck with something that looks a bit like child benefit.

Which system is it that requires decent people to be in charge, and can we vote/not vote for it?

 

[love detective]

In practice probably. But even in theory, even if nobody is taking the piss, there would still be a need for the surplus to be extracted and redistributed so that we can care for the elderly and infirm, hospitals, education, etc. The question is who extracts/controls the surplus and how.

And it's not just looking after the elderly/infirm/children/non 'productive' workers in the here and now that it would be required for - surplus labour would always have to be extracted in the here & now to be 'spent' on things that generally only benefit future generations (even in capitalist/non progressive ways of organising society this has to happen, so you'd expect it to happen even more in a more progressive mode of organising society)

so it would be required for the investment in the ongoing development of social productivity in the here and now to provide/cater for more production in the future (both for increases in population in the future and also just general advances in living standards as society becomes more civilised for all etc. development of new energy sources, solutions to long run environment problems etc..)

also any society would also have to produce more than what was required for social consumption in the here & now so that it can safeguard itself against times of shortage, disasters, wars, and any other interruptions in 'normal' social reproduction etc..

 

[ymu]

Which system is it that requires decent people to be in charge, and can we vote/not vote for it?

Maybe it would help if I reworded for clarity?

Any system which requires decent people to be in charge is doomed to fail the population that it serves.

You can't vote for it because capitalism is never going to allow a free vote on its own abolition. And neither is any other system run by people with power who don't want to lose it and have a say in the matter.

 

[cesare]

Maybe it would help if I reworded for clarity?

Any system which requires decent people to be in charge is doomed to fail the population that it serves.

You can't vote for it because capitalism is never going to allow a free vote on its own abolition. And neither is any other system run by people with power who don't want to lose it and have a say in the matter.

I get the feeling (maybe I'm wrong?) that you're referencing to how things might work within capitalism which is inherently a reformist position ie state socialism v state free socialism

 

[ymu]

I can't see any way to prevent the abuse of power under capitalism. You're saying you can?

 

[cesare]

I can't see any way to prevent the abuse of power under capitalism. You're saying you can?

I advocate mitigating the effects of capitalism whilst working to overthrow it.

 

[ymu]

That's nice. Doesn't explain why you thought I might be advocating a form of capitalism where no one can abuse their power. How could any such thing exist?

 

[cesare]

That's nice. Doesn't explain why you thought I might be advocating a form of capitalism where no one can abuse their power. How could any such thing exist?

Listen to you with your put downs, that you got so very narky with 39thstep earlier. "That's nice" - fuck off

 

[weepiper]

If anyone does know what are the true numbers of single fathers? Is it 8% or 12% of the total single-parent household population?

Also, what proportion of households with children use childcare at a paid-for facility?

Genuine questions btw.

Gingerbread says there are 2 million single parents in the UK and 8% or 186,000 are fathers

They don't seem to have exact numbers for single parents using paid childcare, but it says 'Of those using childcare, 46 per cent said it was informal' so 54% must be paid for.

http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/content.aspx?CategoryID=365

 

[weepiper]

My personal thoughts on this btw, are that if they would stop harassing single parents to go back to work when their children are younger and younger (it's going to be when your youngest child is one year old soon ), there would be more paid hours going round for other people who are not taking care of children. It's another way of depressing wages and keeping unemployment, or at least full-time work anyway, high for everyone.

 

[smokedout]

My personal thoughts on this btw, are that if they would stop harassing single parents to go back to work when their children are younger and younger (it's going to be when your youngest child is one year old soon ), there would be more paid hours going round for other people who are not taking care of children. It's another way of depressing wages and keeping unemployment, or at least full-time work anyway, high for everyone.

but they can all get jobs as cleaners and child minders for the middle class mums (that's what identity politics without a class foundation has won - more housework)

 

[cesare]

but they can all get jobs as cleaners and child minders for the middle class mums (that's what identity politics without a class foundation has won - more housework)

Most normal women aren't that keen on being the subject of unpaid labour and there's no shocker there.

 

[smokedout]

if you're poor looking after kids and housework isn't labour, its worklessness

 

[weepiper]

if you're poor looking after kids and housework isn't labour, its worklessness

This is what it boils down to. If you're middle class staying at home with your children is laudable. If you're poor it's laziness.

 

[cesare]

if you're poor looking after kids and housework isn't labour, its worklessness

This is what they try and convince you of. That looking after kids isn't work and that housework isn't work - they try and convince you that it's part of life and you shouldn't complain about it all falling on your shoulders because that's what you should do as part of life's fucking rich pattern. Fuck that.

 

[smokedout]

I think the point I was getting at is the devaluation of childcare - when its your own kid, and the loss of the right to raise your child at home unless you are rich (whichever gender you are), has not necessarily been such great gain for working class women - and that's what was conceded in the name of middle class gains won through identity politics

 

[cesare]

I think the point I was getting at is the devaluation of childcare - when its your own kid, and the loss of the right to raise your child at home unless you are rich (whichever gender you are), has not necessarily been such great gain for working class women - and that's what was conceded in the name of middle class gains won through identity politics

Not disagreeing but I'd add in (as I said earlier) other caring roles as well.

 

[sleaterkinney]

After seeing how much work my nephew is I have no idea how single parents cope full stop. Childcare down here costs around £70 a day and that's leaving your kid in a room with other kids not all of whom will have the same sleeping pattern so it's not going to get rest.

 

[ymu]

Listen to you with your put downs, that you got so very narky with 39thstep earlier. "That's nice" - fuck off

Apologies. I couldn't see what your post had to do with the one it was responding to and was a bit frustrated. I can see where the misunderstanding came in now. Still should have found a better way to say it. Sorry.

No apologies for cunting off the Spare Rib comment though. Sick and tired of that style of putdown any time a woman says something a bloke doesn't like.

I am gonna fuck off though. Way past my bedtime.

 

[cesare]

Apologies. I couldn't see what your post had to do with the one it was responding to and was a bit frustrated. I can see where the misunderstanding came in now. Still should have found a better way to say it. Sorry.

No apologies for cunting off the Spare Rib comment though. Sick and tired of that style of putdown any time a woman says something a bloke doesn't like.

I am gonna fuck off though. Way past my bedtime.

There's probably more to unite than divide on this thread. I'd still fucking dismantle stuff than reform it though :wink:

 

[Red Cat]

This is what it boils down to. If you're middle class staying at home with your children is laudable. If you're poor it's laziness.

Well, we all know poor women have thick kids who don't need the kind of creative and stimulating experiences required by their middle class counterparts. What must they do all day?

 

[weepiper]

Well, we all know poor women have thick kids who don't need the kind of creative and stimulating experiences required by their middle class counterparts. What must they do all day?

oh true, after all my children are only going to grow up to work on the till at Asda or cleaning floors if they're lucky, so they don't need me at home the same way those delicate children who're going to grow up to be investment bankers and MPs do

 

[The39thStep]

Apologies. I couldn't see what your post had to do with the one it was responding to and was a bit frustrated. I can see where the misunderstanding came in now. Still should have found a better way to say it. Sorry.

No apologies for cunting off the Spare Rib comment though. Sick and tired of that style of putdown any time a woman says something a bloke doesn't like.



I am gonna fuck off though. Way past my bedtime.

Apologies for having the temerity to disagree with someone who happens to be a woman.

 

[Red Cat]

oh true, after all my children are only going to grow up to work on the till at Asda or cleaning floors if they're lucky, so they don't need me at home the same way those delicate children who're going to grow up to be investment bankers and MPs do

Can poor children even be considered children? After all, the research over the past few decades shows us just how extremely able very young children are. Some people even say that they are like little scientists in their attempts to understand and act on the world. In this respect, is it not more accurate to describe the poor child as a blob?

 

[cesare]

oh true, after all my children are only going to grow up to work on the till at Asda or cleaning floors if they're lucky, so they don't need me at home the same way those delicate children who're going to grow up to be investment bankers and MPs do

It's a good job you don't actually believe that and won't pass it on to your kids. My parents did actually believe that the only way out of working on the till forever was education. They weren't right but I understand why they thought that. I fucked off the whole education thing in their face then spent 30 years trying to get to the same place without it.