Racism Report

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 minutes ago, Van wink said:

"They are saddled with student debt, minimum wage employment, unable to even think about buying home etc."

What a huge generalisation BF, I abhor student loans but student debt isn't in fact the massive dead weight that many would have us believe it is, having said that I was fortunate to have free tertiary education. Those "saddled with student debt" should not be the same group who work on minimum wage employment, if they are decent quality graduates then pandemic excepted there will be work available for them well above the minimum wage, that has been the case with my family and those young people I am familiar with. Those without qualifications may well end up with jobs on minimum wage, has always been thus but at least there is now a "minimum wage" hasn't always been the case. As for buying property, yes a real problem, accepted.

As long as those qualifications are what the "market" wants at any one moment?

[Van wink 2,994]

6 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

As long as those qualifications are what the "market" wants at any one moment?

Absolutely, people will employ staff who bring the qualities, experience or knowledge that they need to do the job. In a well balanced successful mixed economy there should be work available for all graduates.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Van wink

[Fen Canary 811]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

Absolutely, people will employ staff who bring the qualities, experience or knowledge that they need to do the job. In a well balanced successful mixed economy there should be work available for all graduates.

The main problem being is that we’re simply churning out too many graduates. When around half of youngsters are going to university, there simply isn’t enough jobs in the economy that require a degree, so to expect all those graduates to earn a premium on their wages simply isn’t going to happen.

Rather than leading us to more well paying jobs, the glut of graduates has simply raised the entry requirements for the jobs we already had.

Where firms used to train their staff, they now expect those same staff to pay to gain the skills the company needs. It’s a massive rort in my eyes, with the money from the influx of students being used to upgrade and gentrify previously run down cities such as Liverpool instead of helping the students themselves. 

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

3 hours ago, BigFish said:

Two separate things, my friend. With regards to my praise of the younger generation things are definitly improving with greater tolerance of differences in ethnicity, religion, sexual preference and physical attributes. Maybe they are a little earnest, but things are generally moving in a better direction. They have little agency when it comes to economics with capitalism's capacity for producing stable, well paid jobs diminishing. They are saddled with student debt, minimum wage employment, unable to even think about buying home etc. White collar professional sectors are being hollowed out by AI. This divides society between those who own big tech or inherit wealth and those who work in tactile occupations on minimum wages. Marx would recognise this, not sure that I have seen a reputable analysis that refutes the analysis.

Before Covid struck, employment levels were rising and between 2016 to 2019 a million new jobs were created. The employment rate for 16-64 year olds stood at 76.6% in January 2020, the highest level since 1971.

In April 2019 only 1.5% of jobs for over 16 year-old employees were below Minimum Wage and just 10% at Minimum Wage, so 88.5% of jobs were over minimum wage.

 https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/lowandhighpayuk/2019#:~:text=4.-,National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage,of employee jobs) in 2018.

 

While Covid is a game-changer and we don't yet know the extent of the effects will be on the economy. the reality before Covid was that employment was increasing and the vast majority of jobs were paying better than minimum wage.

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

3 hours ago, BigFish said:

Two separate things, my friend. With regards to my praise of the younger generation things are definitly improving with greater tolerance of differences in ethnicity, religion, sexual preference and physical attributes. Maybe they are a little earnest, but things are generally moving in a better direction. They have little agency when it comes to economics with capitalism's capacity for producing stable, well paid jobs diminishing. They are saddled with student debt, minimum wage employment, unable to even think about buying home etc. White collar professional sectors are being hollowed out by AI. This divides society between those who own big tech or inherit wealth and those who work in tactile occupations on minimum wages. Marx would recognise this, not sure that I have seen a reputable analysis that refutes the analysis.

Before Covid struck, employment levels were rising and between 2016 to 2019 a million new jobs were created. The employment rate for 16-64 year olds stood at 76.6% in January 2020, the highest level since 1971.

In April 2019 only 1.5% of jobs for over 16 year-old employees were below Minimum Wage and just 10% at Minimum Wage, so 88.5% of jobs were over minimum wage.

 https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/lowandhighpayuk/2019#:~:text=4.-,National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage,of employee jobs) in 2018.

 

While Covid is a game-changer and we don't yet know the extent of the effects will be on the economy. the reality before Covid was that employment was increasing and the vast majority of jobs were paying better than minimum wage.

[BigFish 1,986]

6 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Before Covid struck, employment levels were rising and between 2016 to 2019 a million new jobs were created. The employment rate for 16-64 year olds stood at 76.6% in January 2020, the highest level since 1971.

In April 2019 only 1.5% of jobs for over 16 year-old employees were below Minimum Wage and just 10% at Minimum Wage, so 88.5% of jobs were over minimum wage.

 https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/lowandhighpayuk/2019#:~:text=4.-,National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage,of employee jobs) in 2018.

 

While Covid is a game-changer and we don't yet know the extent of the effects will be on the economy. the reality before Covid was that employment was increasing and the vast majority of jobs were paying better than minimum wage.

You miss the point, which was that technology and macro-economics are hollowing out good, stable, well paid, secure jobs typically known as "white collar" and replacing this with precarious, insecure and low paid ones. At the same time the winners in this process are gathering unprecedented wealth for themselves. It was not about the total volume of jobs, it was about quality and the creation of a new precariat.

[Badger 2,405]

12 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

I have spent about 8 of the last 20 years traveling/living in non-white countries and I have had many conversations with fellow travelers about how experiencing the nuts and bolts of other peoples and cultures makes you more pragmatic and realistic about humanity and less idealistic. People are tribal and have a deep subconscious wariness of the "other". Where I am now they refer to the neighboring countries as burros (donkeys), in turn the denizens of that country refer to this as monos (monkeys). In my girlfriend's country I don't have a name, I am simply referred to as "foreigner" or "foreign horse" which is the locals jokey nickname for all foreign guys. The worst racism I ever witnessed was an actual punch-up at my old workplace between North and South Indians. I could go on....

The identity politics Left with its utopian, puritan zeal seems utterly divorced from the messy, confusing, complex reality of human nature and relationships and pointing out that most evidence points to the fact that in evolutionary terms, humans seem to find it easy to be cooperative and empathetic below the Dunbar number, but the opposite once split into different tribes- particularly when those tribes look and behave differently- is generally met with abuse and the usual boring and lazy cop out that you must be a right wing N*zi for introducing inconvenient ideas into the conversation. The other predictable tactic is accuse you of being a "biological determinist" for pointing out that people's natural subconscious biases are not likely to be overcome with hectoring, lecturing or accusations of bigotry etc.

I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, however, I find what you write to be contradictory.

On the one hand, you seem to be suggesting that racism, and wariness of other cultures is universal. On the other hand, you have denied that racism exists in our society and institutions.

Please explain.

[Badger 2,405]

13 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

One thing is clear, Marxists do find a lot of things hard to explain. Ricardo has a point when he says the theory doesn't match the practice.

He has asserted this, but has provided no evidence. 

I don't suppose you will either: you will merely parrot what you are told to believe.

[Badger 2,405]

15 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

far Left ideas have ended in carnage pretty much whenever they've been tried

I don't know about that: most people seem to say that democracy is a pretty good idea. This was very much for use as an extreme left position when it was proposed. 

You might say the same about  free healthcare, which is pretty popular as well. Another thing, that was regarded as far too extreme when originally proposed.

You need to learn some history: things that have been advocated by "extremists" and resisted by "realists" are widely accepted within a generation.

[Yellow Fever 3,767]

38 minutes ago, Badger said:

I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, however, I find what you write to be contradictory.

On the one hand, you seem to be suggesting that racism, and wariness of other cultures is universal. On the other hand, you have denied that racism exists in our society and institutions.

Please explain.

Thanks Badger. I agree with  you here.  In my earlier post I gave family examples of subtle racism exactly as alluded to above and what we should try to change and rise above.

Yet some then defend or excuse this as human nature to deflect from calling it out as what it is - racism.

Being wary of others that are unknown to you may well be a human indeed animal trait. Discrimination and making assumptions on the basis of race alone - often blind to the actual person - is something else. 

[ricardo 7,382]

47 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

You need to learn some history: things that have been advocated by "extremists" and resisted by "realists" are widely accepted within a generation.

Which is surely proof that the system is dynamic and constantly changes and readjusts to the new  concensus. To see this as some affirmation of Marxist theory is a stretch to say the least.

[king canary 7,600]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

You miss the point, which was that technology and macro-economics are hollowing out good, stable, well paid, secure jobs typically known as "white collar" and replacing this with precarious, insecure and low paid ones. At the same time the winners in this process are gathering unprecedented wealth for themselves. It was not about the total volume of jobs, it was about quality and the creation of a new precariat.

Yep exactly this. 

If the right genuinely wanted to prevent what they see as 'far left' ideas taking hold then they'd look to rebalanced the economy somewhat. Inequality just drives people to extremes.

[Badger 2,405]

3 hours ago, ricardo said:

Which is surely proof that the system is dynamic and constantly changes and readjusts to the new  concensus. To see this as some affirmation of Marxist theory is a stretch to say the least.

"...the system is dynamic and constantly changes and readjusts to the new  concensus."

This is in effect the essence of Marxist theory. As you say the system is dynamic and changes to form a new equilibrium. Marx describes the process by which this has happened over time.

In simple terms, the process can be summarised as "dialectical materialism." I don't like using jargon terms but the idea behind it is straightforward.

The dialectic is the process of change - the "thesis" (the current situation/ organisation of society) is challenged by antithesis (the new organisation of society, reflecting the new forces that are emerging). In time, this will produce the new "synthesis" - this is the new organisation of society that largely replaces the old organisation (although incorporates some elements).

This process is driven by materialism. Marx says that the key factor that drives societal change is the way we maintain our existence (the economic system). Under feudalism, for example, the key factor was ownership and control of land - this is what produced wealth and power. Over time, with the development of capitalism, you did not need to own huge swathes of land to have the same degree of wealth and control but the control of capital. Therefore the aristocracy are replaced as the ruling class by capitalists (the bourgoisie). There is of course some integration between the classes - it is the stuff of Victorian novels as aristocratic children are forced to marry new money.

The dynamism and change you highlight is the very essence of the process. 

 

[Badger 2,405]

3 hours ago, king canary said:

If the right genuinely wanted to prevent what they see as 'far left' ideas taking hold then they'd look to rebalanced the economy somewhat. Inequality just drives people to extremes.

It is, however, far cheaper to use alternative methods. One of these is to control the media, education and cultural life of society to affect people's thinking and perception. A part of this is to encourage people to be divided and blame "others." Thinking of an older relative of mine it's pretty effective, she blamed to long delay on her hip operation not on NHS spending restrictions and the austerity but on migrants who were using up all the NHS's services!

They try to divide those who are destroyed by the system by suggesting that the blame is their own (they are lazy etc) and also by trying to unite the poor around concepts like nationalism and patriotism - "I may be poor but at least I'm British ...and that makes me a winner."

[Mr.Carrow 376]

6 hours ago, Badger said:

I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, however, I find what you write to be contradictory.

On the one hand, you seem to be suggesting that racism, and wariness of other cultures is universal. On the other hand, you have denied that racism exists in our society and institutions.

Please explain.

What?! I have never said anything of the sort. I have said that I don't believe that your assertion (repeated on the Woke Left) that our "system is racist" is accurate or fair. I'm also aware of the propagandistic reasons why this description is being aggressively pushed and that it stems from the same mindset that led to the horrors of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

A few other points. Communism (using that term improperly, but as a useful shortform) is always judged in the west, as regards how it performs as a government, against established democracies. But almost by definition (although not totally true) the countries where you have had communist governments were not democracies beforehand.

I have never been to Cuba but I suspect the ordinary Cuban has been better off in many ways under Castro communism than under the rampant corruption of a CIA/mafia criminal kleptocracy.

Neither China nor Russia were true democracies and neither were some (not all) of the central and eastern European countries (some with very nasty people in charge) that became part of the Soviet defensive mini-empire (and to understand the Russian mentality and indeed Stalinism it is necessary to realise their overriding fear, borne out time after time, has been invasion because of a lack of natural boundaries. Hence the need for a buffer).

Many years ago I read a book called Magnetic Mountain, about the building in the thirties out of pretty much nothing of the giant steel city of Magnitogorsk. Which was a heroic achievement, with genuine community spirit, which sometime even included saying No to the Stalinist commissars who wanted to purge this or that work colleague.

But the drive to make it happen probably could only have come from having a totally paranoid psycho like Stalin in charge, and it stands as a symbol not only of the frenetic modernisation of Russia, from backward to world power in a few decades, but a reminder that without a feared paranoid psycho in charge to force that modernisation Hitler might not have been defeated.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

5 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Thanks Badger. I agree with  you here.  In my earlier post I gave family examples of subtle racism exactly as alluded to above and what we should try to change and rise above.

Yet some then defend or excuse this as human nature to deflect from calling it out as what it is - racism.

Being wary of others that are unknown to you may well be a human indeed animal trait. Discrimination and making assumptions on the basis of race alone - often blind to the actual person - is something else. 

In that case my girlfriend and her family are vile n*zi racists. Ok, but I have a cunning plan. When I go back I'll start a political movement telling them such in no uncertain terms. I'll call them deplorables and state that flying their countries flag makes them irredeemable. I'll set up online mobs ever vigilant for the slightest anachronistic joke or ambiguous comment from 20 years ago and campaign to get those people sacked or worse (all from the comfort of my leafy suburbs, obviously...). Then I'll demand that those people vote for me and double down on just how evil they are when they don't want to. 

Alternatively I could encourage following the lead of western liberal democracies to gently educate, help where necessary and include, in order to gradually overcome our natural instincts without resorting to demonisation, hate and blame, which has led to the most inclusive, tolerant and open minded societies on the planet. Hmmm, which to choose...?

[Badger 2,405]

7 hours ago, Badger said:

People are tribal and have a deep subconscious wariness of the "other". Where I am now they refer to the neighboring countries as burros (donkeys), in turn the denizens of that country refer to this as monos (monkeys). In my girlfriend's country I don't have a name, I am simply referred to as "foreigner" or "foreign horse" which is the locals jokey nickname for all foreign guys. The worst racism I ever witnessed was an actual punch-up at my old workplace between North and South Indians. I could go on....

So I replied....

6 hours ago, Badger said:

On the one hand, you seem to be suggesting that racism, and wariness of other cultures is universal. On the other hand, you have denied that racism exists in our society and institutions.

Your response...

 

51 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

What?! I have never said anything of the sort.

Either you are deliberately dissembling or just don't know what you say from one minute to the next!

[horsefly 4,296]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

In that case my girlfriend and her family are vile n*zi racists. Ok, but I have a cunning plan. When I go back I'll start a political movement telling them such in no uncertain terms. I'll call them deplorables and state that flying their countries flag makes them irredeemable. I'll set up online mobs ever vigilant for the slightest anachronistic joke or ambiguous comment from 20 years ago and campaign to get those people sacked or worse (all from the comfort of my leafy suburbs, obviously...). Then I'll demand that those people vote for me and double down on just how evil they are when they don't want to. 

Alternatively I could encourage following the lead of western liberal democracies to gently educate, help where necessary and include, in order to gradually overcome our natural instincts without resorting to demonisation, hate and blame, which has led to the most inclusive, tolerant and open minded societies on the planet. Hmmm, which to choose...?

So your response to YF's temperate and reasonable claim that: "In my earlier post I gave family examples of subtle racism exactly as alluded to above and what we should try to change and rise above. Yet some then defend or excuse this as human nature to deflect from calling it out as what it is - racism. Being wary of others that are unknown to you may well be a human indeed animal trait. Discrimination and making assumptions on the basis of race alone - often blind to the actual person - is something else."  is to engage in your standard tactic of claiming he has said something very different in order to set up an extreme straw man argument that bears no resemblance to what is being claimed. Explain how you get from what YF says to your ridiculous claim that he is saying "In that case my girlfriend and her family are vile n*zi racists". Or that he says anything that justifies your rant that, "When I go back I'll start a political movement telling them such in no uncertain terms. I'll call them deplorables and state that flying their countries flag makes them irredeemable. I'll set up online mobs ever vigilant for the slightest anachronistic joke or ambiguous comment from 20 years ago and campaign to get those people sacked or worse (all from the comfort of my leafy suburbs, obviously...). Then I'll demand that those people vote for me and double down on just how evil they are when they don't want to. "

It's not difficult to see why you are so fond of throwing around the pejorative catch all slur "woke", and why you find the reactionary ruling class mouthpieces The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, and the Tory Party your natural bedfellows.

[Badger 2,405]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

is to engage in your standard tactic of claiming he has said something very different in order to set up an extreme straw man argument that bears no resemblance to what is being claimed

... you omit the fact that Mr C also denies what he has said in the first place - see my post above yours.

But your assertion is correct - he likes to "redefine" what others have said...

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

5 hours ago, ricardo said:

Which is surely proof that the system is dynamic and constantly changes and readjusts to the new  concensus. To see this as some affirmation of Marxist theory is a stretch to say the least.

The only thing that stops anything being positive or successful is people.

The refutation of Marxism by countries that haven't tried it is hardly evidence that it doesn't or will not succeed.

[ricardo 7,382]

13 minutes ago, horsefly said:

reactionary ruling class mouthpieces

 

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

The only thing that stops anything being positive or successful is people.

The refutation of Marxism by countries that haven't tried it is hardly evidence that it doesn't or will not succeed.

Probably they noticed the contradictions, the 200 years of being dreadfully wrong and last but not least the tens of millions of pointless deaths.

Apart from that it is superficially a very attractive theory.😉

[Mr.Carrow 376]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

So I replied....

Your response...

 

Either you are deliberately dissembling or just don't know what you say from one minute to the next!

You accused me of "denying that racism exists in our individuals and institutions". I spent a lot of time on another thread having to pull up my quotes to prove your lies wrong. So again, I ask for a quote in which I said anything of the sort. 

But to be clear,in order to overcome humanities natural biases I do not believe that tarring everything we find uncomfortable between different groups with the most pejorative,loaded and judgemental terms (racism,sexism etc) we can muster is in any way constructive. It's the exact opposite and if that isn't clear by now I'm not sure that I'm debating with people connected to the real world. And of course the irony is that the psychology behind the desire to judge and condemn the "other" is exactly the same as the atavistic tribalism that drives real racism. Same demonisation, different tribes.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

5 minutes ago, ricardo said:

 

Probably they noticed the contradictions, the 200 years of being dreadfully wrong and last but not least the tens of millions of pointless deaths.

Apart from that it is superficially a very attractive theory.😉

But they were not Marxist policies. They were the ones of men frightened of losing their power. Stalin was neither Communist or Facist. He was just a mass murderer.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

18 minutes ago, Badger said:

... you omit the fact that Mr C also denies what he has said in the first place - see my post above yours.

But your assertion is correct - he likes to "redefine" what others have said...

Given that is exactly what you have done on multiple threads and have just done again, that takes the levels of hypocrisy into the stratosphere. The very definition of bad faith.

[ricardo 7,382]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

But they were not Marxist policies. They were the ones of men frightened of losing their power. Stalin was neither Communist or Facist. He was just a mass murderer.

Its just "The never been tried properly" excuse.

You need a really big carpet to sweep Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et all under but Marxists always find a brush.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

26 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So your response to YF's temperate and reasonable claim that: "In my earlier post I gave family examples of subtle racism exactly as alluded to above and what we should try to change and rise above. Yet some then defend or excuse this as human nature to deflect from calling it out as what it is - racism. Being wary of others that are unknown to you may well be a human indeed animal trait. Discrimination and making assumptions on the basis of race alone - often blind to the actual person - is something else."  is to engage in your standard tactic of claiming he has said something very different in order to set up an extreme straw man argument that bears no resemblance to what is being claimed. Explain how you get from what YF says to your ridiculous claim that he is saying "In that case my girlfriend and her family are vile n*zi racists". Or that he says anything that justifies your rant that, "When I go back I'll start a political movement telling them such in no uncertain terms. I'll call them deplorables and state that flying their countries flag makes them irredeemable. I'll set up online mobs ever vigilant for the slightest anachronistic joke or ambiguous comment from 20 years ago and campaign to get those people sacked or worse (all from the comfort of my leafy suburbs, obviously...). Then I'll demand that those people vote for me and double down on just how evil they are when they don't want to. "

It's not difficult to see why you are so fond of throwing around the pejorative catch all slur "woke", and why you find the reactionary ruling class mouthpieces The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, and the Tory Party your natural bedfellows.

I have lived and worked in the working classes all my life, whereas you have admitted that you are middle class. You have no idea how badly identity politics goes down in the 57% of the UK who describe themselves as working class. Your rabid condescending lectures from the privileged leafy suburbs are irrelevant. You do not understand how the world works. Keep losing our side votes dude, Boris is applauding you all the way.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Its just "The never been tried properly" excuse.

You need a really big carpet to sweep Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et all under but Marxists always find a brush.

But the ones you mention are hardly Marxists. The three greatest mass murderers in history.

Its not that its never been tried properly, its that its never been tried.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

But the ones you mention are hardly Marxists. The three greatest mass murderers in history.

Its not that its never been tried properly, its that its never been tried.

I think the best argument to this is that what is required to implement these policies when coming up against human nature leads to the horrific outcomes of those regimes. The evidence seems to suggest this. The question is do we want to try it all again to find out?

[ricardo 7,382]

5 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

But the ones you mention are hardly Marxists. The three greatest mass murderers in history.

Its not that its never been tried properly, its that its never been tried.

I expect it was your Union work that negated the prediction that we would would all progressively become poorer as the bosses squeezed the life out of us.😉

I don't mean to be facetious KG but you know very well that even in our own industry events did not mimic Marx's predictions. Our parents were better off than our grand parents, we are better off than our parents. We can't deny that we lived through those improvements and if it required any sort of revolution then it was so peaceful that we barely noticed. The truth is that events evolved in a way that Marx did not forsee.