dynamicbaddog
run for your life
Earlier in the year the right wing think tank - The New Culture Forum held a discussion about the book with Owen, Ed West and the editor of Spiked, Brendan O Neill, it was a really heated debate.
[Mon 12th Sep 2011] Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class, with Owen Jones (London, WC1B 3QE)
- Thread starter dynamicbaddog
- Start date
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
most of the reviews have been favourable, only people who really hated it were Spiked
I've been asked to review it for 'Permanent Revoultion' magazine
are they the workers power split? i thought u were in labour lol??
temper_tantrum
The beauty of the ride
So basically the message is that if you're not 100% pure by the age of 26, you might as well give up and fuck off, eh? I'm sure that a lot of people will find that an inspiring message.
Other than the fact that he interviews Rachel Johnson, what does he say in the book which is wrong?
Other than the fact that he interviews Rachel Johnson, what does he say in the book which is wrong?
dynamicbaddog
run for your life
got a few mates who are in PR and one of them asked me to write a review for them.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
He could still have done normal part time jobs at college etc? Or doesn't that count?
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Would it be a problem if OJ had never had a proper job in his life? You seem to be beoth saying that he might have had a proper job, and also saying that it doesn't matter one way or the other. Sort it out.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
It wouldn't stop him from being middle class, no.
love detective
there's no love too small
True, whether or not he had a paper round is key to resolving the crux of the issue here
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Actually, on re-reading this thread, i made no comments about his class whatsoever. Not a one. I've done two things.
First i argued that his choice of people to illustrate his wider points is often crap (Rachael Johnson, Neil Kinnock, Clare Short and so on - and i could have argued that this distance from the w/c probably mirrors the distance that he mentions that he feels himself due to his relatively privileged background - something he himself repeatably on his website and in the book. But i didn't) and secondly that the book doesn't say that his parents were militant full-timers, but does mention other jobs.
Both points are correct. I do realise that as ever with you there's an element here of outraged defence of yourself, but you really did get this wrong.
love detective
there's no love too small
not sure what 100% pure means - but once again, the discussion here is predominantly about the desirability or otherwise of people going straight from university (oxford & cambridge usually) and directly into political advisory type jobs
i.e. the increasing tendency towards the professionalisation of politics across the political spectrum - something Owen Jones himself recognises as a problem in relation to effective & relevant political representation
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yes, there are many things in the book that Owen Jones himself mentions in the book that are being brought up here and those bringing them up are being attacked for attacking Jones. Its bizarre. I think a lot of this is to do with people not actually having read the bloody thing before deciding they have something to say about it.
dynamicbaddog
run for your life
it's you that is coming out with all the straw man arguments, so if you have read the book you've have'nt properly understood it
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I've asked you to tell me what arguments I've made that are wrong and why. You're not done so yet. You're also failed to tell me what I've not understood about the book.it's you that is coming out with all the straw man arguments, so if you have read the book you've have'nt properly understood it
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
The fact that he doesn't mention them being f/ters doesn't mean they weren't. Which you seem to be implying. At one level this thread is hilarious - the fact he doesn't give chapter and verse on the IWCA is objective proof of his privileged background
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
the fact he doesn't give chapter and verse on the IWCA is objective proof of his privileged background
There's a proper straw man for you, dynamicballbagbutchersapron
Bring back hanging
I haven't said they weren't full timers. I said the book doesn't say that they were. And his other writings mention his dad only. You took this for some odd reason to be a comment on his class background. it wasn't, as I've now pointed out to you at least two times.The fact that he doesn't mention them being f/ters doesn't mean they weren't. Which you seem to be implying. At one level this thread is hilarious - the fact he doesn't give chapter and verse on the IWCA is objective proof of his privileged background
I have said nothing about his class background whatsoever. Nor have I said a single thing about the iwca.Which is why you cannot find me a post to back up your claims. You've simply lumped together loads of different posts by loads of different posters, whilst wagging your finger at people for lumping together lots of things into one. I suggest you re read the thread lest your confusion digs you any deeper holes.
love detective
there's no love too small
At one level this thread is hilarious - the fact he doesn't give chapter and verse on the IWCA is objective proof of his privileged background
This thread is hilarious but I don't think you see why
I know you're a plum, but generally a reasonably intelligent plum, so I'm confused by you sinking to the level of your post above?
That is just desperate, misrepresenting stuff and well you know it - it also detracts from any actual reasonable points that may be lurking in your other posts
love detective
there's no love too small
I couldn't say, thankfully not around here enough to pick up on these things
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
What makes you think I'm singling out your contribution? I've been talking about the general thrust of the response. I know i was being cheeky about the IWCAers comments
I'm not seriously accusing them
temper_tantrum
The beauty of the ride
He was on the Moral Maze tonight apparently. Didn't hear it.
Still waiting for an explanation of what was wrong in his book (as opposed to in his life).
Still waiting for an explanation of what was wrong in his book (as opposed to in his life).
love detective
there's no love too small
who is this question actually aimed at? (i.e. which posts on the thread)
Because this thread, in addition to his own class background, has been mainly a discussion about the contradiction between what he says and what he does - i.e. he criticises those who go straight from Oxbridge and into paid political jobs without experience of the 'real world' as it brings problems in relation to working class representation in politics, but then he himself goes straight from Oxbridge into a paid political job working for a party who were in government at the time (and now back into academia again). He also quite correctly raises a lot of other problems with this colonisation of representation by the professional political class and what it means for any hopes of genuine working class political representation
Off the two specific criticism of the book on this thread that I can see - these are:-
1. his choice of people to provide a 'searing indictment of the class system' (while choosing to ignore potentially valuable input on the on the ground experience of, and difficulties faced by, organisations literally down the road from him who have spent the best part of the last two decades working towards a more effective working class political representation. Something that he says he is keen to see more off - so i'd assume he would have been interested in attempts to have done so, especially those attempts that breaks with the shackles, chains and dogma of the old conservative left)
2. his tendency to hold a outdated/romanticised/idealised/purified notion of the working class that verges on a type of identity politics (which in my opinion is due to the distance between him and his subject matter)
Both of these criticisms were put forward and explained by those offering them what the issue is with them - you may disagree with these points, but those making them have given enough information on them as to what their issue is with them, so not quite sure what it is you are demanding from this thread
all told - a reasonable summary of the book would be what butchersapron posted on page 1, i.e.
Because this thread, in addition to his own class background, has been mainly a discussion about the contradiction between what he says and what he does - i.e. he criticises those who go straight from Oxbridge and into paid political jobs without experience of the 'real world' as it brings problems in relation to working class representation in politics, but then he himself goes straight from Oxbridge into a paid political job working for a party who were in government at the time (and now back into academia again). He also quite correctly raises a lot of other problems with this colonisation of representation by the professional political class and what it means for any hopes of genuine working class political representation
Off the two specific criticism of the book on this thread that I can see - these are:-
1. his choice of people to provide a 'searing indictment of the class system' (while choosing to ignore potentially valuable input on the on the ground experience of, and difficulties faced by, organisations literally down the road from him who have spent the best part of the last two decades working towards a more effective working class political representation. Something that he says he is keen to see more off - so i'd assume he would have been interested in attempts to have done so, especially those attempts that breaks with the shackles, chains and dogma of the old conservative left)
2. his tendency to hold a outdated/romanticised/idealised/purified notion of the working class that verges on a type of identity politics (which in my opinion is due to the distance between him and his subject matter)
Both of these criticisms were put forward and explained by those offering them what the issue is with them - you may disagree with these points, but those making them have given enough information on them as to what their issue is with them, so not quite sure what it is you are demanding from this thread
all told - a reasonable summary of the book would be what butchersapron posted on page 1, i.e.
dynamicbaddog
run for your life
If you had actually read the book properly you would find he does talk to people who live and work in working class communities. You're just bitter because he doesn't mention or give free publicity to your irrelevant ultra left sect - the IWCA.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Odd that Jones himself feels he should have interviewed the IWCA for the book then.
dynamicbaddog
run for your life
maybe he did. But I'm glad that in the end he didn't.
Similar threads
