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

[ymu]

does laurie penny represent the same class as own jones?

No. And?

 

[andysays]

People couldn't get paid before money?

Obviously people could get paid before money. But the other assumption in this is that there is someone with a surplus of food (or whatever) who is willing to exchange it for sex. What have they done to acquire this surplus and might that count as a profession?

I'll give you a blowjob if you feed me for a week. Deal?

You might need to re-think your rates there, I suspect that would be over-monetising your hotness...

 

[Blagsta]

Ms Crabapple I presume?

The link to the wiki definition of ressentiment was a nice touch.

I thought they couldn't spell.

 

[Blagsta]

You don't need to be registered to read this thread. Could be coincidence but I suspect this is one of Laurie's bohemian mates because they turned up within hours of Laurie.

It's not Molly, Molly can't spell for toffee.

This person can't spell resentment.

 

[Blagsta]

I'd only ever heard the name mentioned on here and a couple of blogs before tonight but I'd seen enough to know he was a vile piece of shit. Obviously thought he'd be able to hide behind that mask for ever so it's quite amusing to see him getting his.

I tried engaging him in a discussion about individualism a while ago, he showed himself to be completely incapable of engaging. A total joke.

 

[andysays]

This person can't spell resentment.

I think you need to go back and re-read that part of the thread a little more carefully

 

[Blagsta]

Old Holborn's docs

Ha ha ha!

 

[Blagsta]

I think you need to go back and re-read that part of the thread a little more carefully

I think you need a sense of humour.

 

[cesare]

I think you need a sense of humour.

 

[andysays]

I think you need a sense of humour.

I do have a sense of humour, but it occasionally lets me down. Apologies if this is one of those times

 

[cesare]

Obviously people could get paid before money. But the other assumption in this is that there is someone with a surplus of food (or whatever) who is willing to exchange it for sex. What have they done to acquire this surplus and might that count as a profession?

Robbing. Hoarding. Killing a bigger animal than they could eat at once. Sowing more than needed against the risk of adverse weather, then reaping unexpectedly large amount. Ability to access glut of difficult to get at foodstuffs. Etc

 

[Blagsta]

I do have a sense of humour, but it occasionally lets me down. Apologies if this is one of those times

No worries. I'm not as funny as I like to think.

 

[andysays]

Robbing. Hoarding. Killing a bigger animal than they could eat at once. Sowing more than needed against the risk of adverse weather, then reaping unexpectedly large amount. Ability to access glut of difficult to get at foodstuffs. Etc

All of those are possible ways of getting your hands on a surplus, true.

What I'm trying to get at is that when everyone is living a collective more-or-less hand to mouth existence in hunter-gatherer/primitive communist societies, there is very little possibility of any one individual being able to accumulate a significant surplus and being able to exchange it for non-food items like blow jobs...

It's only with the advent of farming that surpluses were generated, any division of labour (aka professions) was possible, and societies became more complicated with the emergence of embryonic class systems.

Farming must pre-date prostitution as a profession.

 

[cesare]

All of those are possible ways of getting your hands on a surplus, true.

What I'm trying to get at is that when everyone is living a collective more-or-less hand to mouth existence in hunter-gatherer/primitive communist societies, there is very little possibility of any one individual being able to accumulate a significant surplus and being able to exchange it for non-food items like blow jobs...

It's only with the advent of farming that surpluses were generated, any division of labour (aka professions) was possible, and societies became more complicated with the emergence of embryonic class systems.

Farming must pre-date prostitution as a profession.

But not everyone in hunter-gatherer societies was able (at all times) to go and hunt and gather for themselves. So the basis of the collective sharing would be based on communal needs such as child rearing, and caring for the old/sick. Exchange isn't necessarily based on surplus.

 

[Dillinger4]

People couldn't get paid before money?

I'll give you a blowjob if you feed me for a week. Deal?

not the same thing, no they couldn't.

 

[ymu]

None of this changes the meaning of the old adage. It's an interesting topic in its own right, but surely the meaning that is intended to be conveyed is more important than the semantic definitions and economic history?

It would actually be interesting to discuss why it is the oldest profession.

 

[Dillinger4]

It isn't.

 

[killer b]

i think it's just a rather misogynist statement that relies on the assumption that women will only fuck men if they want something.

 

[Balbi]

Adam & Eve y'all.

 

[andysays]

None of this changes the meaning of the old adage. It's an interesting topic in its own right, but surely the meaning that is intended to be conveyed is more important than the semantic definitions and economic history?

It would actually be interesting to discuss why it is the oldest profession.

Why it's claimed to be the oldest profession and (originally) by whom

 

[rekil]

Laurie and Owen get the mention on conservative home.

The lost tribes of British politics – day 3: the Labour left and the palaeo-socialists

5. The Labour Left

Just because New Labour is done for it doesn’t mean that Old Labour is back in the game. That much was made clear when the Labour left tried to organise a challenge to Gordon Brown’s coronation in 2007 – but couldn’t even get enough nominations to force an election.

You might think that Labour doesn’t need a left: it’s mainstream is quite capable of bankrupting Britain on its own. But, to be fair, there is a sizeable chunk of non-totalitarian territory between, say, Ed Balls and outright Communism.

Tribune magazine is the traditional standard bearer – but, more recently, the Labour Left has been enlivened by sparky young writers like Owen Jones and Laurie Penny.

Furthermore, thanks to campaign groups like the Occupy and 38 Degrees, proper pinkoes (as opposed to duller Brownites) haven’t had it this good for a long time.

And yet, despite today’s crisis of capitalism, Britain remains indifferent to the charms of full-blooded socialism. Unlike the situation on the continent, where parties of the left compete with those of the centre-left, the Labour Party – outside of the political micro-climates of Brighton, Bradford and Tower Hamlets – has the red corner all to itself.

Furthermore, within the Labour Party, there’s no challenge to the ruling faction. The heirs of Gordon Brown have nothing to fear from the heirs of Tony Benn.

Come on lefties, sort it out!

Score card:

Intellectual inheritance: 2/5

Past glories: 3/5

Online presence: 3/5

Future prospects: 2/5

 

[Balbi]

Owen Jones meets that category. Wouldn't say Laurie does. Labour actually engage with Jones, whereas they wouldn't give Penny the time of day.

 

[Dillinger4]

It's because she is too radical

 

[rosecore]

"It's my parents' grudge, really," Sky admitted. "But looking at the world we're living in now, I understand that a lot of it evolved from her policies."

young punks and activists handing out beer and their parents' grudges

Thatcher-hatred isn't confined to the intermittently organised left. It's a folk memory thing, a tribal thing, passed down from parents to children

Another thing I found problematic about the piece was Penny's insinuation that young people can't really have a true opinion on Thatcher because they are inherited beliefs and grudges of their parents. Intentional or not, there's a subtle mocking in there I'm sure.The first person she interviews admits this is the case. Those on the right made the same spurious argument. Such a lazy thing to write.

 

[butchersapron]

Owen Jones meets that category. Wouldn't say Laurie does. Labour actually engage with Jones, whereas they wouldn't give Penny the time of day.

I'd say he engages with labour, they don't engage with him - they don't have to, he's doing a great job of convincing many young people that there is no other road to change anything but through voting labour thereby helping make it actually happen, whilst the party fails to sign up to or support any of the things he gives as the reason for voting labour.

 

[ymu]

i think it's just a rather misogynist statement that relies on the assumption that women will only fuck men if they want something.

I don't see it that way at all.

I think it's because all societies to date have been patriarchal (exceptions heavily disputed, it doesn't matter, quibble away but it's irrelevant to the argument). Men are leaders and women are possessions for the purpose of bearing babies.

Women always know the child is theirs. Men cannot be sure.

So patriarchs who believe in the importance of blood-lines (which is something of a historical continuity, AFAIK) need to keep their women from fucking anyone else, if they want to them to bear their children, or marry them off to a respectable family.

So women must be prevented from having sex. FGM is one way to do it. Making them cover up so men don't get turned on by them and try to do something about it is another way. Capital punishment for being raped is a good 'un.

In 20th century Britain, the evolution of these archaic attitudes is probably best summed up by Barbara Cartland: at marriage, women should be virgins and men should be experienced.

Which is basically saying "we need a class of prostitutes to keep middle-class men happy and middle-class women virgins".

Hence the routine raping of female workers by their bosses and superiors, a situation which continues however many sets of societal blinkers we are wearing. Nice girls don't do that, and other women don't matter.

 

[killer b]

ok. well, i think it's a lot simpler than that. but this isn't really the thread for a lengthy discussion on the matter imo.

 

[cesare]

I'd say he engages with labour, they don't engage with him - they don't have to, he's doing a great job of convincing many young people that there is no other road to change anything but through voting labour thereby helping make it actually happen, whilst the party fails to sign up to or support any of the things he gives as the reason for voting labour.

I'm going to try and memorise this post cos it gets the point across so well. Do you think his effect is worse than LP's btw?

 

[TruXta]

These people obviously do not "represent" the working class, or "the left" (whatever that is) in any adequate way. And they might be wankers. And? Why should they be held responsible for representing any one other than themselves? It just seems to me that the working class is in every way responsible and capable of representing itself. And if that does not seem to be happening in an adequate way, the working class is responsible for that failing. To project the responsibility of representation on some random, young middle-class-oxbridge journalist(s) - regardless if they delude themselves to believe that this is something they are actually doing - seems to me to be a declaration of failure. The working class is not some pitiable five year old who has to beg representation from random middle-class journalists. It's the largest and best organized faction of a modern capitalist society. Or at least it should be. But then again, I'm from Norway, so that's how we do these things. It seems that you've lost the plot.

Aslak Sira Myhre?

 

[Greebo]

Adam & Eve y'all.

And Lilith.