After your comments on contraception in a previous thread, it takes a bold individual to then quote Goebbels. I salute you. But in truth, I wouldn't be overly bothered with anyone rejecting any label they wish, regardless of how appropriate it is for them.Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Fine sentiments, and as I said earlier, it is sad for his family that he died at a relatively young age, but no sadder than any other bereaved person. And while I might admire him as a successful CEO, certainly no hero (of mine - but each unto their own).
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
I would like to see the context in which Bob Crow was ‘moaning about fatcat capitalist companies, and company bosses, and their tax position’. I’ve looked for his views on this in print, and haven’t been able to find them, which is surprising considering how much that line is towed out here and elsewhere. What I suspect that context was, although I am happy to stand corrected if anyone is willing to provide evidence, is that Crow was stating that the Government should ensure that companies pay what is considered a ‘fair’ amount. My understanding of this non-story is that the RMT Union did not partake in any tax-avoidance ‘schemes’, and that the income was offset against the genuine benefits the Union offer (They pay staff sick pay, holiday pay, etc) and that they were not pro-actively avoiding tax. Aside from that, unless Bob Crow was also campaigning that the RMT should be exempt for any changes that government implement, then his view (if indeed it was his view) that companies and corporations should pay ‘proper’ tax is IMO, valid.I think (but may be wrong) the point HalloweenJack was making was along the lines of the "hypocrisy" point I made ....
The RMT has shares in many "fatcat" companies, including banks, other financial institutions, drug companies, etc. Yet, socialist-borderline communist Bob Crow was regularly on television moaning about fatcat capitalist companies, and company bosses, and their tax position. You may not have heard him moaning about companies not paying their "proper" tax, but I have, along with many other left-wingers, AND senior Labour MPs, with "proper" apparently defined as what those self-same people regard as "fair", never mind what the law that, in large part their government wrote, defines as correct.
Who said the above? Is it the like of Amazon, or a certain high street coffee chain? Well, very likely, yes. It's certainly near-identical to the form of words they use, and exactly the formula for their logic. But in that particular case, it's a direct quote from an RMT spokesperson.
And it's a bit rich for a socialist union boss to be on TV moaning about fatcat bosses, and indulging in what seems to be Labour's favourite spirt, banker-bashing, when the very union he runs invests in many of the self-same companies.
It's rather like a church going on about dubious ethics or tax policies of drugs companies, tobacco companies and arms companies only to discover their own "ethical" investments include millions in holdings in all three.
Oh, wait ....
As for the Union investing in these companies, it always makes me laugh when I hear these accusations of hypocrisy. What you seem to be suggesting is, although we live within in a capitalist society where, financially at least, it is effectively the only framework to work in, that if you criticise it, or claim it is unjust or unfair, then you shouldn’t be able to benefit from it, lest you be called a hypocrite. Within the current system, if the Union did not invest and earn income, they would be unable to continue to provide the benefits that they do, or campaign for the social changes that they do, effectively ceasing to exist. That doesn’t mean that they can’t, or shouldn’t, campaign for a different system that everyone, including them, should have to work in.
Your argument reminds me of a recent Russell Brand interview where he was labelled a hypocrite for calling on people to back an online petition to drug laws, because he had previously said that people en masse should refuse to vote at the next election to enforce change. To call Brand, or in your case Bob Crow a hypocrite is failing to acknowledge that both still try to engineer change in a system that is already in place. If they refuse to do that and simply reject that system completely, while admirable, they would simply become impotent.
No, my point was that he lambasted those companies for being the thing he says he despised, while at the same time, runs a union with millions of pounds of shares in them.
If I take a stance that smoking is destructive, I'm not going to buy tobacco shares. If I take a strong anti-war stance, I'm not going to invest in arms companies. If I become a Labour MP and spend a large part of my public life criticising private fee-paying schools, I'm not going to turn round and send my kids to them, or at least, not without admitting I was wrong all those years to condemn others for doing so. And yes, Ms. Abbott, I do mean you. I understand that any parent wants the best for their kid. But that does make her a hypocrite.
As for "evidence" of Bob Crow, I might have it. Whether I can find it is another matter. I have a very large collection of news clips, interviews, current affairs items, and so forth. And by large, I mean hundreds of hours. Maybe more. The question is whether any of my keywords would pick this out specifically, and as the Bob Crow interviews will likely have been on other things, it's doubtful. But I have seen him say it, and more than once.
Bob Crow might, like Brand, be seeking to engineer change, but Crow's union investing in the very companies he lambasted, is rank hypocrisy, very much like left-wing politicians condemning the fee-paying school system as a political position, then jumping into it themselves for pragmatic reasons. Understandable maybe, but undoubtedly hypocritical.
TheAnimus (13-03-2014)
I think you have a simplistic view on the world. Newton was a very great man, the principia mathematic has been an amazing foundation for us all. Yet I wouldn't begin to take his views on life seriously, the guy was kind of a nut job. Doesn't make his work on mathematics less valid.
Goebbles might have been an evil sadistic nutjob, but that doesn't mean he didn't understand human nature when it comes to being decisive, in fact, quite the opposite.
Moreover if you understood the implications of his views on manipulating opinion, the fact, that lets not forget, they were all about socialist rights, the poor workers against those greedy minorities. Well you might just be less rabid when it comes to saying there are workers and non-workers.
Effectively, you draw a distinction that is solely for an emotive purpose, so that you can be prejudice against some people.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Again, without the context in which you heard him say the things you say he did, and what it was that he was specifically criticising, it’s impossible to reply to that without surmising, but I’ll give it a bash. What you are comparing, when you talk of smoking and arms companies, is not like for like. As far as I am aware, (but happy to stand corrected as I have not seen them) he was not criticising companies for their end products, nor questioning the morality of the end products, or even suggesting that, for example, Bankers should not be doing what it is they are doing, but was criticising the governance of companies at boardroom level in regards to pay and bonuses, and the Governments inaction of tackling that, at a time when they are making cuts elsewhere during a recession brought on, in part, by certain sections of the banking world . I presume that, as a shareholder (in respect of the RMT Union), he would have known that an increase in tax paid by these companies would leave less for shareholders, including his own Union, and furthermore, any corporate tax changes, that he seemed to advocate, could lead to his own Union being taxed on their own profits. Far from being a hypocrite, I think that’s commendable. Again, there is a lot of surmising in what I’ve said, as I don’t know which companies or individuals he was specifically referring to, and what it was that he despised, in all these interviews he gave, and whether they apply to the specific companies the RMT is invested in, or whether he was speaking in general terms with regards to excessive pay and tax avoidance. Effectively, you seem to be suggesting that the only way that the RMT can avoid the label of hypocrisy is by not investing in companies that would engage in any behaviour criticised by Crow in these interviews. A quick glance at the FTSE 100 tells me this would be near high impossible.
The comparison with Diane Abbott is again, not like for like. If there was an alternative way, (as there is regarding Private schools) for the Union to invest it’s money as securely, and ensure that they got the required return that allowed them to function as they do, without investing in the companies he is criticising, then it would be similar. As far as I am aware, there is not. Besides, as I said to one of your previous posts, if you are a Labour MP, it is unlikely that you will be speaking for the Left, or the Left that I recognise at the least. Labour gets the majority of the Left’s votes because they are the least worst, not because they are the best.
I can’t stop you viewing Crow as a hypocrite, nor am I particularly bothered that you choose to see it that way. It’s always been an easy accusation to fire at the Left, especially at those that complain about the system; it’s set up so that you cannot survive without benefitting at some level from capitalism, and then you are crucified with cries of ‘hypocrite’ when you dare complain. A rigged game if ever there was one. That someone like Crow would, even though it would be to the detriment of his Unions own position, seek changes to this system simply makes him go up in my estimation. That he done it whilst ignoring the continued & often ad hominem attacks, ranging from his political positions to his appearance, makes it even more impressive IMO.
I didn’t even criticise Goebbles in my post, so how you came to the above conclusion, I don’t know. I merely suggested that, as you seem quite concerned previously about being mistaken for a Pro-Eugenics enthusiast, others in the same position might have refrained from quoting Goebbles, regardless of how appropriate his quote might be. I was genuinely impressed that you didn’t.
Nowhere, at all, have I ever said, or even implied (unless you are willing to provide evidence?) that drawing a distinction between working class and non working class would enable me to prejudice against anyone, and nor would I want to. I would like to see all of the working class have better, but not at the detriment of anyone else, otherwise all you are left with is effectively a massive race to the bottom, and just happen to feel that it is best achieved by the working classes working together, with the more who choose to self-identify, the better. Let’s say, just for example, that Peterb is someone who I would consider working class; if he chooses to not identify with that, or doesn’t think he is, it makes absolutely zero difference to me – it’s not as if I want a revolution where all those who didn’t announce they were working class would be shot up against a wall.
Unfortunately, and you have given the game away slightly with your assumption, it is you that is looking at things simplistically and black and white. You continually view things through an ‘us & them’ lens, and fail to understand that there are some of us that want better who feel that can be achieved without prejudicing against others.
is someone who works an 80 hour week in the stock exchange handling millions of pounds day trading 'working class'?
Then why even mention it, it's not relevant.
I am suggesting that it is the motive for it. You've used a lot of language to the effect that Crow was good for one type of person, that somehow we can't possibly deny that to be the case.
The distinction is yours, no one else appears to understand it, I don't, peterb appears not to, nor wasabi.
The inverse, I have not been doing that at all, yet you have. I've not mentioned any delineation of people, I think in the medium to long term Crow has been universally bad for all concerned, everyone.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Depends on your definition. But by the definition that has been proposed here, in answer to my question, I suppose the answer would be yes - the clue is in the word "working".
But, by that definition, someone who is unemployed cannot be working class, because they are not working.
Or am I just confused? Or maybe it just demonstrates the hollow and pointless application of a label - except to promote tribalism, and support discrimination.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Isn't the point of a label to be able to be prejudice towards someone/a group of people (either in a positive or negative way)?
I know nothing about the monetary side of it, but I would assume there are alternatives to investing in companies he apparently didn't agree with for whatever reason.
I highly doubt it's a simple as they invest in them, or the whole thing falls apart, sure they may have to increase fees, or decrease salaries, or invest in different companies, but I highly doubt it was their only choice. Merely the way for them to get the most money.
I'm fully aware that's all opinion, not based on facts, but just thought I'd comment.
Also, how would you improve the lives of all working class without having a negative affect on others? (same applies to any 'class').
Of course you can deny it is the case, or state that you feel differently; who am I to say that you, or anyone, are not entitled to think whatever you like? But I clearly disagree. I fully accept and acknowledge that there will be plenty of people, including large swathes of the working classes, who will not feel the same as me regarding Crow. You seem to be implying that because I am of the opinion that Bob Crow was good for the working classes, then it must follow that I think that the working classes must feel the same as I do. I don’t.
And again, I ask you to point specifically to anything that I have posted that leads to you suggesting that my motive for drawing the distinction is so I can prejudice against others. I suggest that you can’t, because I didn’t.
That you, and perhaps Peterb and Wasabi also, do not understand the distinction makes no difference to me. In fact, even if everyone on this forum felt the same as you, it wouldn’t really be a concern of mine; it’s not as if I’m the only person in the world who understands what working class is, or appreciates that it is still relevant in this day age and shares a common aim – Just look at trade union membership figures in the UK alone.
Your opinion which you’re entitled to. I would suggest RMT members would politely disagree.
I don’t know which definition ‘proposed here’ you are referring to, but here’s what I’d said when you’d previously asked when you previously asked:
If someone is dependent on selling their labour, and/or on the welfare state to have what would be considered an acceptable standard of living, and unable to accumulate any substantial degree of wealth because of funding that basic standard of living, they should be considered working class
So I’m a bit confused which definition were you referring to, because the one above clearly mentions someone relying on the welfare state? (and I assume when you say someone unemployed, you’re not describing a millionaire living of his interest, but not working)
And of course many, or most, of those that work in the city would be working class.
‘Support discrimination’? Please tell me who, by drawing a distinction between those that are working class and those that are not, is being discriminated against, and more importantly, in what form would this discrimination take place? I keep hearing it, but no one has yet explained it. The implication, to me at least, seems that support for a particular group must invariably involve the discrimination of those outside that group.
As for tribalism, there are lots of aspects where tribalism can, and does, have a positive effect without negatively affecting anyone else.
"us working classes" - for whom were you speaking? - because you weren't speaking for me, as a member of the working classes - nor, I suspect many here (in fact you acknowledge that - although again, I suspect the majority of us are working class - by your definition. So you were either being very presumptuous in your sweeping generalisation, or you have some other definition that you have not shared with us.(But although you weren't speaking for me, I acknowledge, in my own right, that he did a very good job for his union membership, and as such was a good CEO).
And labels certainly act as a method of discrimination - "us and them" - gang labels, the list is legion, and while you might consider Theanimus's quoting Goebbels as perhaps a bit OTT - he has a point - it enables those of us, to identify (and perhaps exclude - or in some cases include) those who are not "us". In other words, it promotes exclusivity, in the widest sense of the term.
Considered by who (apart from Marx)?
But based on that definition, then the city banker would probably fall out of that definition - as would anyone who is able to save any money from there earnings.. But again, the definition fails because the term "acceptable standard of living" is not defined.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
I don't think it's remotely OTT, the NAZI party at it's core had a un-deniable use of Marxist ideology.
It was the combination of Nationalism with Socialism achieved via Fascism. Nationalist Socialist Worker Party
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
You're still missing my point, I think. It's not about end products, or tax policy, it's about actively criticising fat-cat bankers, and capitalist banks, for example, then investing in them.
An ethical investment policy involves not investing in things you disapprove of. It involves investing in things you can approve of, not just taking the profits, while castigating the companies, even if the return is lower.
I, for instance, would not consider buying shares in companies whose areas of business, or modes of operation, I deplored, no matter what the return. There are no circumstances, for instance, in which I would invest a red cent in tobacco companies, or for that matter, GM crop companies, and if that means forgoing large returns from those companies, so be it.
EDIT - Add Google, and Starbucks, to companies I would not invest in .... though for rather different reasons.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote