Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Selling Out: Where is the line crossed?

You can have decent private landlords, even ones who bought places to do up/rent out. But to give them tax breaks, to allow some of them to accumulate hundreds of properties so they end up being able to negotiate private interest rates with banks, to have no rent caps, to sell off council property and not replace it...and a lot more...is a huge multi-decade failure of policy.

If the policy opens up areas where a cunt can be a cunt, best to change the policy, not to judge/alienate everyone who is a landlord in advance. Even in Cuba you can own two homes now ;) Ok, not a great example but...
 
Jeff Robinson said:
I disagree. Buy to let reduces the houses available to buy, makes more people dependent on private landlords and pushes up prices. Buy to let landlords are essentially parasites. That prevailing policies enable this doesn't get the people who choose to do so off the hook imo.
Click to expand...

Yes, the mechanism you provide may well push up house prices. As well as...

Go back to the big bang where our financial services were deregulated. A whole load of new money was made available to lend to people. House prices go up.
Council house sell off and house prices go up.
Changing legislation around renting makes it easier for landlords and house prices go up.
Banks get bailed out and our economy is flooded with money via QE. Interest rates go down. House prices go up.
Subsidised loans for deposits and house prices go up. etc.

I blame individuals with a buy to let property for pushing prices up as much as I blame people who eat in Nando's for supporting tax dodging transnational companies which ultimately make money from abusing chickens while relying on a de-unionised, demoralised badly treated workforce.

For plenty of reasons it's important to make a moral stand and to follow your ethics - but to classify normal folk as parasites for not adhering to your moral standards is a bit OTT IMO.
 
fredfelt said:
Go back to the big bang where our financial services were deregulated. A whole load of new money was made available to lend to people. House prices go up.
Council house sell off and house prices go up.
Changing legislation around renting makes it easier for landlords and house prices go up.
Banks get bailed out and our economy is flooded with money via QE. Interest rates go down. House prices go up.
Subsidised loans for deposits and house prices go up. etc.
Click to expand...
You forgot one. Part-rent, part-buy schemes for 1st time buyers. Prices go up.
 
kabbes said:
Doing something that is against your principles is, by definition, selling out. The question surely is hw much that matters. Is there value in sticking to your guns, no matter how much it cost you and how little difference it makes?
Click to expand...

There's a few aspects that, imo, matter.

The main one being what are the wider consequences of your "selling out"? Does it undermine any efforts you might be making to "create a better world". Coz if you're banging on (as I hope most of us are) about the value of solidarity, of mutual aid, of collective action and self-organisation, but then act in ways that contradict these ideas then, yes, your choices matter.

That's not to say that passing judgement over your, or anybody else's, actions from some politico-ethical high ground is the answer either.

Rather, a little bit of self-reflection, taking responsibility for your own actions within your workplace/community etc. and thinking about what accountability means, if anything, in the sort of communities we wish to build.

Thinking about the social context of individual and individualised choices is key.
 
chilango said:
There's a few aspects that, imo, matter.

The main one being what are the wider consequences of your "selling out"? Does it undermine any efforts you might be making to "create a better world". Coz if you're banging on (as I hope most of us are) about the value of solidarity, of mutual aid, of collective action and self-organisation, but then act in ways that contradict these ideas then, yes, your choices matter.

That's not to say that passing judgement over your, or anybody else's, actions from some politico-ethical high ground is the answer either.

Rather, a little bit of self-reflection, taking responsibility for your own actions within your workplace/community etc. and thinking about what accountability means, if anything, in the sort of communities we wish to build.

Thinking about the social context of individual and individualised choices is key.
Click to expand...

It's the old prisoner's dilemma isn't it? When everyone sticks together they can collectively improve their lot but each individual has an incentive to 'sell out' for their own advantage. That's the genius of neoliberalism: it atomises individuals, breaks bonds between communities and turns everyone into 'companies of one'. The RTB is a classic example: it dangled a juicy economic incentive in front of every council house owner to 'sell out' (or 'buy out'). If nobody had bought their council houses we wouldn't be facing the housing crisis we face today (at least to a lessor extent) but then again if other people are getting to own their own home and buying it as discount why be the mug who keeps renting out of principle?

How to get round this? A problem with parts of the left as I see it is that it sells its vision of an alternative society on the basis of the economic betterment of the working class. The problem with this is that, under the atomising conditions of neoliberalism, it may seem rational for each individual member of the working class to pursue their economic betterment by competing in the capitalist rat race rather than clubbing together to achieve collective goals. That's the neoliberal prisoner's dilemma.

I don't have any easy ways out of this dilemma, but it seems to me that it might be more fruitful to think less in terms about condemning others from a 'politico-ethical high ground' and more in terms of espousing positive values and ideals and setting inspiring examples by sticking to them. I know that's pretty trite, but there you go.
 
Last edited:
chilango said:
What about if, say, there was a scholarship?

...or a 75% discount for children of staff?
Click to expand...

I went to a private school on the assisted places scheme in the '80s/'90s despite living in a single-parent family often dependent on Income Support. The total numbers covered by the scheme before Labour abolished it would have been pretty big.

Glad both the scheme has been abolished and that the school has since closed down. Utter shit.
 
Jeff Robinson said:
It's the old prisoner's dilemma isn't it? When everyone sticks together they can collectively improve their lot but each individual has an incentive to 'sell out' for their own advantage. That's the genius of neoliberalism: it atomises individuals, breaks bonds between communities and turns everyone into 'companies of one'. The RTB is a classic example: it dangled a juicy economic incentive in front of every council house owner to 'sell out' (or 'buy out'). If nobody had bought their council houses we wouldn't be facing the housing crisis we face today (at least to a lessor extent) but then again if other people are getting to own their own home and buying it as discount why be the mug who keeps renting out of principle?

How to get round this? A problem with parts of the left as I see it is that it sells its vision of an alternative society on the basis of the economic betterment of the working class. The problem with this is that, under the atomising conditions of neoliberalism, it may seem rational for each individual member of the working class to pursue their economic betterment by competing in the capitalist rat race rather than clubbing together to achieve collective goals. That's the neoliberal prisoner's dilemma.

I don't have any easy ways out of this dilemma, but it seems to me that it might be more fruitful to think less in terms about condemning others from a 'politico-ethical high ground' and more in terms of espousing positive values and ideals and setting inspiring examples by sticking to them. I know that's pretty trite, but there you go.
Click to expand...
That's why breaking down networks of solidarity was/is so important to thatcher and her children. Atomising us is crucial to the project.
 
sparklefish said:
It absolutely does. I'm sure William has had a bit of stick about it in the past so I'm surprised he's dragged it up again.
Click to expand...

sparklefish killer b

This following is just context. I'm not going to attempt to defend what I did as such, because it's not defensible.

But you might? have forgotten that the sublet thing lasted not for very long at all -- less than 5 months as it turned out.

At the time, I had little to no confidence**, at all, about whether or not my moving to Swansea would work out, relationship wise.

**(far less confidence than I should have had really, given how well it's worked out by now, but still, this was back then! .... )

Don't forget also, that I'd resigned, after almost 20 years, from a well paid/permanent/secure job in London to follow my love dream -- being unemployed for 18 months was one of the (admittedly far less important) consequences.

For several of those months I had no money at all (the hours were great mindyou :D ) because signing on was only possible for a limited part of that time -- Deb knew the DWP rules.

What you/others may not remember from the previous monstering I got about this a few years ago, a fair bit of which was done by people on here who at the time hated me anyway (who started the call-out-of-me thread about it back then? Not me!) is that the unofficial sublet plan was never, at any point, intended to be permanent.

I never felt great (to say the least) about doing it at all, and I knew all along that OK, yes, it was shitty and, yes, utterly wrong. Illegal too, all that. I could apologise if asked, but what would that achieve?

But please look a bit beyond that less-than-5-months period can you? Please? I gave the keys back to the Council did I not? Not expecting congratulations or anything stupid for that, because that was what what I'd always intended to do anyway. The returning of the keys happened a little (and I really do mean a little!) earlier than intended is all, and I'm glad (now) that it did, because the Council got the flat back (main thing).

Debbie was massively supportive, principally emotionally (but also financially), at the time.

Well I've moved on a tad now, and the Council have had the flat back since early (March or at latest April I think) 2009. Perhaps moving on's worth doing for others, if anyone's still happens to be pissed off with me about it.

It was a stupid error of judgement I made over six years ago .... :hmm:
 
Last edited:
Oh, I know someone who's put up an itinerant person and put a deadline on how long they could stay with them. I also know someone who was a ski instructor and it wasn't exactly lucrative teaching 8 year olds (though I also rented a room in a house with a person who only needed to work six months a year as a ski instructor, presumably more established and teaching adults). In fact, two rooms I've rented have had cleaners attend to the house every other week as part of the rent, though not something that was negotiable.

Also my younger sister got a scholarship to go to a boarding school in the US, though I ensured she had a book of Shelley's poetry with her when she went so hopefully she'll not become insufferable.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
That's why breaking down networks of solidarity was/is so important to thatcher and her children. Atomising us is crucial to the project.
Click to expand...

The atomisation narrative is somewhat problematic I think.

It assumes that there is some kind of purely constituted w/c that if de-atomised will lead us to a reinvigorated level of class militancy. It does nothing to understand late capitalism and why any sort of revolutionary change is impossible at the moment.

It's the trendy thing (dare i even say ideological) to bang on about being against neoliberalism. But what are you saying. Nothing, in most cases.
 
Last edited:
Without saying that selling out is or is not worthy of condemnation, I would just note that when it comes to tragedy of the commons style problems, the most effective solution is to ensure that structures and rules exist to prevent destructive behaviour rather than to hope each individual takes a personal stand for the collective good.

That's not to say that peer pressure can't be a powerful tool in its own right. But where that peer pressure lacks the status of a taboo, it's an unreliable safeguard at best.
 
But you need that social pressure for the rules and structures that curtail/prevent destructive individual behaviour from taking place to exist.
 
You do, to a point. But expect people too much to be too ascetic and you cross a line that makes it both unrealistic and socially corrosive in its own right. We can all be criticised for some of our actions that take place within a selfish capitalist industrialised society. The nature of the beast is fundamentally corrupting. Once you start down the path of blaming individuals for actions that are both commonplace and have little individual effect, you want to be careful that your own record is squeaky clean across all axes of morality.
 
William of Walworth said:
Well I've moved on a tad now, and the Council have had the flat back since early (March or at latest April I think) 2009. Perhaps moving on's worth doing for others, if anyone's still happens to be pissed off with me about it.

It was a stupid error of judgement I made over six years ago .... :hmm:
Click to expand...
You brought it up, not me or killer b. I mentioned on this or the other thread about my job related to RTB that I'm really ashamed of. If someone made an issue of it, I couldn't get the hump because I offered the information. If you didn't want any stick you needn't have brought it up because no one else was going to.
 
dialectician said:
The atomisation narrative is somewhat problematic I think.

It assumes that there is some kind of purely constituted w/c that if de-atomised will lead us to a reinvigorated level of class militancy. It does nothing to understand late capitalism and why any sort of revolutionary change is impossible at the moment.

It's the trendy thing (dare i even say ideological) to bang on about being against neoliberalism. But what are you saying. Nothing, in most cases.
Click to expand...
I was talking about straightforward stuff such as unions and the like. A change in political discourse from a collective 'we' to the 'you' of 'hard-working families'. The destruction of ideas such as a right to free education. The destruction of the idea that it is a state's job to provide housing for its people.

Simple but concrete changes as the postwar settlement is pulled to pieces.
 
Orang Utan said:
I thought it was a music biz term - ie signing to a major label after slagging them off.
Click to expand...
you were wrong:

to sell out

5. colloq. (orig. U.S. Polit. slang). trans. and intr. To betray a person or cause for gain (cf. sell-out n. at sell n.2 4). Also trans., to betray (a candidate) by secret bargains (Cent. Dict. 1891).
1888 J. Bryce Amer. Commonw. III. lxxxiii. 110 When this transfer of the solid vote of a body of agitators is the result of a bargain with the old party which gets the vote, it is called ‘selling out’.
1903 G. B. Shaw Man & Superman iii. 78 He has sold out to the parliamentary humbugs and the bourgeoisie.
1946 A. Koestler Thieves in Night 112 The English are going to sell out on us.
1976 Survey Winter 86 Barbé called for tactics of disobedience to the colonial administrators and to the traditional chiefs who had ‘sold out’ to the French government.
1857 Lawrence (Kansas) Republican 2 July 1 If the Times has not been ‘sold out’ to the Border Ruffian party, it looks very much as if it had been ‘chartered’.
1867 Oregon State Jrnl. 19 Jan. 3/1 The writer thinks the officers were ‘badly sold out’.
1936 M. Mitchell Gone with Wind ix. 189 Why quibble about the Yankees earning an honest penny selling out the Union?
1940 J. B. Priestley Postscripts 45 It let the old hands, the experts,..speak for it, and they sold it out.
1967 Times 17 Nov. 8/6 With shouts of ‘They sold us out, the bastards’, the meeting moved to ‘the moment of truth’.
1976 ‘J. Charlton’ Remington Set xxviii. 141 What happened is, Rog sold us out.

4. sell-out n. orig. U.S.
Thesaurus »
Categories »

a. An agreement or contract corruptly made by a public body, involving sacrifice of public to private interest. Also gen., (one who makes) a sacrifice of principle or betrayal.
1862 M. B. Chesnut Diary 6 May in C. V. Woodward Mary Chesnut's Civil War (1981) xiv. 336 Another sellout to the devil. It is this giving up that kills me.
1883 J. Hay Bread-winners 151 How much did the Captain give you for that sell-out?
1890 Advance (Chicago) 1 Feb. 3 The proposed sell-out of the State of North Dakota to the infamous Louisiana Lottery Company.
1906 Tom Watson's Mag. Jan. 362 in Cent. Suppl. The Tariff Act..was an ungodly and unblushing sell-out to the Sugar Trust,..[and to] the greedy manufacturing interests generally.
1940 ‘G. Orwell’ Jrnl. 24 June in Coll. Ess. (1968) II. 354 High-up influences in England are preparing for a similar sell-out [to Pétain's].
1953 Landfall (N.Z.) Dec. 283 This film could have ended with a punch; but this would have been running counter to the sacrosanct Hollywood tradition of the inevitable happy ending. So there is a sell-out.
1959 Economist 11 Apr. 134/2 Specially elected members (reference to whom the wilder parts of the audience had greeted with familiar African cries of ‘stooges’, ‘sell-outs’).
1960 J. F. Lehmann I am my Brother 4 A gigantic sell-out to the Nazis.
a1974 R. Crossman Diaries (1975) I. 182 Then Maurice Edelman made an inflammatory half-hour attack on the Government, charging me and Frank Cousins with every kind of crime, including a sell-out to the Americans.
1980 Times 19 Feb. 6 Mr. Robert Mugabe's Zanla guerrillas infiltrated the region..maiming or murdering those who were considered sell-outs.
 
sparklefish said:
You brought it up, not me or killer b. I mentioned on this or the other thread about my job related to RTB that I'm really ashamed of. If someone made an issue of it, I couldn't get the hump because I offered the information. If you didn't want any stick you needn't have brought it up because no one else was going to.
Click to expand...

Just thought you wee being a bit overcritical is all. Yes I did bring it up, maybe I shouldn't have, but I though some context was necessary too. But as I also said, not defending it or even trying to.
 
Last edited:
Blimey. I don't hate you William. I'll chalk this response down to a bad day.
But you really do protest too much. And sorry, but your posts can be very funny. :)
 
It has been a REALLY bad day you're right.

Stop being so dismissive of my posts though can you? Like you always have been, for years?

There was some serious stuff in that earlier post, none of it designed for your contemptuous amusement.

Which came over as sneering, in that post just now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
How does Labour win an election where concerns over immigration, Islamophobia etc are dominant themes?
Replies
26
Views
799
JimW
JimW
H
ELON MUSK: Keep your hooter (nose) out of U.K.’s business)
Replies
29
Views
769
keybored
keybored
D
Kemi Badenoch’s time is up!
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
239
Views
8K
Lotte
L
chilango
Where are you on the "Vote Compass"?
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
Shippou-Sensei
Shippou-Sensei
tim
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's time is up.
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
4K
weltweit
weltweit
Back
Top Bottom