Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

EDL watch

http://britishfreedom.org/kevin-carroll-for-police-commissioner/



Jack-Nicholson-lol-eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3-1658.gif

Proper enforcement of the law against alien practices such as female genital mutilation.

Do you want to guess how many instances of FGM are reported each year?

None.

It goes on of course, but it's hard for the police to enforce the law on a crime that goes unreported. :facepalm:
 
"• Strong policing of anti-social behaviour that blights the lives of many families."

How many EDL want that?​
"• A crackdown on the dealing of hard drugs to young people."
Sun tanning 'aint gonna keep Tommeh in enough cash, does he know about this one?​
Then the one lifted straight from the BNP site:

"For Kevin’s candidacy, we need to raise a deposit of £5000, and are asking members and supporters to give what they can, so that British Freedom can begin making Britain’s police service properly accountable to the law-abiding majority who pay for it."

DONATE DONATE DONATE
 
labour aristocracy, so far as i've always considered it, is based around skilled manual labour... still restricted in its creative scope and also specifically 'waged'. lots of people get paycheques, people in boardrooms get paycheques as do managers and all sorts. what makes the qualitative difference between working and middle-class 'professionalism' is, for me, the range of intellectual freedoms and creative control (coupled with the legal privileges mentioned earlier) which, combined together also act to attract higher levels of social capital.

i definitely don't see police as working class... i also struggle to see social workers, prison officers or anyone else with legal privileges allowing them to 'discipline' or control other working class people on behalf of the state as being 'workers'. my definition is structural, not subjective - as individuals they can still be progressive but their structural role in the perpetuation of social relations is definitively different

Bus conductors, housing officers, traffic wardens, stray dog officers, Job centre staff, librarians, security staff, park staff, ticket inspectors ?
 
Bus conductors, housing officers, traffic wardens, stray dog officers, Job centre staff, librarians, security staff, park staff, ticket inspectors ?

bus conductors, traffic wardens, stray dog officers, security staff, park staff and ticket inspectors in no way have creative control over their work.. they're given a restricted ability to refuse service or remove a person/people/things from a property or area. that's different from the creative discipline which teachers are able to employ, police, prison officers, and yes lots of welfare staff (including housing officers, who are actively involved in evictions) too.

there are some loose ends - but tbh i don't think it's too important. the other point to make is that it shouldn't be necessary to come up with a definition of class that accounts for the personal conditions and situations of every employed person in existence, so much as a definition which outlines general principles and links them to a structural analysis. i do happen to think that the present left, generally, casts the net too wide in claiming people for the 'working class' (based more upon an opportunistic grasp for organised and unionised sections of the workforce rather than any structural understanding of their social role in relation to capitalism). ironically, they do this at the same time as excluding many genuine working class people from their political horizons on account of their non-kosher attitudes and behaviours. and, also, essentially ignoring the majority of working class people by spending so much time obsessing about the 7% who are organised into TUs.
 
Not sure if pointed out yet, but Kev can't even apply for the role due to his criminal record....

it's just another way to make cash of fuckwits.
 
bus conductors, traffic wardens, stray dog officers, security staff, park staff and ticket inspectors in no way have creative control over their work.. they're given a restricted ability to refuse service or remove a person/people/things from a property or area. that's different from the creative discipline which teachers are able to employ, police, prison officers, and yes lots of welfare staff (including housing officers, who are actively involved in evictions) too.

there are some loose ends - but tbh i don't think it's too important. the other point to make is that it shouldn't be necessary to come up with a definition of class that accounts for the personal conditions and situations of every employed person in existence, so much as a definition which outlines general principles and links them to a structural analysis. i do happen to think that the present left, generally, casts the net too wide in claiming people for the 'working class' (based more upon an opportunistic grasp for organised and unionised sections of the workforce rather than any structural understanding of their social role in relation to capitalism). ironically, they do this at the same time as excluding many genuine working class people from their political horizons on account of their non-kosher attitudes and behaviours. and, also, essentially ignoring the majority of working class people by spending so much time obsessing about the 7% who are organised into TUs.

what about say a person who goes from place to place selling their paintings and sketches?
 
not really working class in any meaningful structural sense, nor in a historical sense which lends any perspective as to the development of capitalism
 
not really working class in any meaningful structural sense, nor in a historical sense which lends any perspective as to the development of capitalism

I am getting a bit confused here. In what way would this defining characteristic of creative freedom that you mentioned earlier contribute to the development of capitalism or have any meaningful historical sense?
 
I am getting a bit confused here. In what way would this defining characteristic of creative freedom that you mentioned earlier contribute to the development of capitalism or have any meaningful historical sense?

because the historical development of capitalism specifically involved the alienation of labour of the working classes (which is one of the main reasons that an evolution from pre-capitalist forms to capitalism wasn't enough to satisfy people interested in human emancipation). it's one of the integral human and structural features of capitalism - the way in which value is extracted from the workforce - and despite being central to, for example, Marx's original ideas and economic writings it's a nuance which gets left out of a lot of current discourse within the left.
 
Well it's not like he's going to get voted in anyway so it's 5K pissed up the wall if they even reach that target.
 
What this move does do is give them a stuctured 3 month period of learning to work on things other than marches or the internet. It gives the serious ones experience in on-the-ground politics, in how to run campaigns, in how to talk to people and work out what appeals to them beyond their current agenda, it gives them time and space to identify who is serious and who is skilled, it gives them a unifying collective thing to work on and build a form of middle level management around who can then go off and try and do similar in their own areas on a smaller scale. Now, i fully expect anything learnt from all the above to ultimately benefit the BNP (under Griffin or not - when he goes there will be an influx i think) rather then the EDL or BFP but nevertheless, even the coming defeat has the potential to have knock-on consequences.
 
because the historical development of capitalism specifically involved the alienation of labour of the working classes (which is one of the main reasons that an evolution from pre-capitalist forms to capitalism wasn't enough to satisfy people interested in human emancipation). it's one of the integral human and structural features of capitalism - the way in which value is extracted from the workforce - and despite being central to, for example, Marx's original ideas and economic writings it's a nuance which gets left out of a lot of current discourse within the left.

So Laurie Penny is on to a good thing then?
 
Back
Top Bottom