Discussion in 'theory, philosophy & history' started by danny la rouge, Sep 20, 2017.
That's like saying everything is mathematics. Trivially true but deeply uninformative.
It's nothing like that.
I might as well say everything is cultural, and subsume politics underneath that.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not making some kind of abstract point: I think that there has been an (intentional?) tendency to exclude many places (the pub, the workplace, etc) from the sphere of politics - explicitly political conversations are discouraged for the sake of harmonious relations and the like, and more technical / theoretical conversations are avoided for fear of alienating or irritating people.
But this ignores that in these spaces, people have political conversations every day: they talk about the trains being late or too expensive, they talk about their groceries increasing in price week by week, they talk about how there's loads more people begging on the street in town than there was a few years ago, they talk about their kids being unable to get into a good school. They talk about how the muslims round their neighbourhood don't seem to want to integrate with the rest of the community, and how now there's only Polish grocers where there used to be hairdressers and hardware stores.
These are the political conversations that matter most, and in the absence of us having conversations that link them to big-p Politics, the vacuum is filled with explanations culled from Daily Mail front pages, channel 5 misery porn documentaries and loudmouth right-wingers.
There's no non-political spaces, and IMO pretending there are risks ceding those spaces to our enemies. Which doesn't mean we should lecture people about Marx over our morning coffee, but nor should we be avoiding discussing politics in our everyday lives, or confronting bullshit when we see it.
I don't think its the conversation that people try to avoid it is the preachy angry know-it-all that appears like the shop keeper out of Mr Ben to make the conversation unpleasant enough so you avoid it in the future most try to avoid. We all know at least one of those.
Well, yes. Which is why we shouldn't
I wouldn't mind that at the moment, I'm looking for a 'Marx for numpties' book to read to understand it a bit better.
Lectures about Marx really are best left till that 2pm-4pm slump when everyone's tired and suggestible and hates their job more than at any other time of day (except the hour before arriving there in the morning)
That said I think when you wrote earlier that all our interactions are political, that's where I think back the fuck up a bit. Maybe you didn't mean to be absolutist but it came across that way. Which is why I countered that everything is cultural, and politics and class are merely cultural subsets.
Manifesto of the Communist Party
This is precisely the point. It is all too easy to allow for the primacy of macro-narratives, which tend to work towards promulgating a sense of failure, rejection, or conservative stasis ('we can't change anything anyway'). By encouraging an attention to the micro level (daily lived experiences) points of resistance can be identified that are within reach and against which organisation is possible.
By cultural do you mean 'socially constructed and historically determined'?
Of course not, I mean the earthly manifestation of eternal types.
Are you giving us an object lesson in the kind of language we should avoid using if we want to talk about politics without people making the wanker sign at us after we leave the room, Beats & Pieces ?
We are on Urban. So we know many more than 'one'
I'm not the Marxist here, so no.
This "everything is politics" closely maps the "everything is religion" model that has served humans so well down the millennia. The point about politics surely is not that everyone has opinions but that those opinions are gathered, some cracks papered over in the first flush no doubt, in some sort of joint struggle/movement? Whingeing about trains is, for a commuter, much like discussing the weather, not a call to action, merely an observation of lifes randomness
I dont care about my idendity Well ok somtimes I do ... when sombody imposes one thats incorrect . But really ... fuck em innit . You`ll get used to it
I promised myself I wouldn't put any more twitter nonsense in here but had to smile when I saw this one. I was scanning the list of worthwhile topics just hoping for a passing mention of poverty or something. They've got animals in there, the planet, women... nothing for poor people? They mean well and haven't said anything bad per se it's just economic inequality isn't on the radar.
Does academic necessarily mean 'smart' anyway?
Exactly, that was the other bit that annoyed me. There are loads of liberal academics who are really smug about their beliefs because they believe they are rooted in being more intelligent or better-read. They think if you don't agree you just aren't understanding properly or haven't read the right books.
It's not just 'liberal' academics, is it? Those who consider themselves radical or revolutionary are still scratching their heads looking for a way in to the 'masses,' while consciously reproducing the conditions of their safe distance. Tear that shit down.
Yes that is a fair point.
Or alternatively, they’re involved in ‘radical’ politics as a means to progress their academic career.
I am also thinking of those who still want to go further than that.
New Kenan Mailk piece. Not a lot new but a decent summary.
Kenan Malik today, spot on and refusing easy answers as usual
In British education, the central issue is class, not ethnicity | Kenan Malik
Intelligence is just a reflection/product of the values of the ruling class anyway.
Separate names with a comma.