Women on the left are responsible for austerity

[CarrotyO]

I've heard it said that women on the left actually support and are therefore in some way responsible for austerity. This is because both Labour and the Tories support austerity. Therefore any woman who supports Labour, or the Left in general, also knowingly and consciously supports austerity and are therefore also responsible for the 1000s of deaths of disabled people caused by austerity. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

I don't think we'll win this battle without the active involvement of right wing women. Not only that, their voices deserve to be heard because they're women and this effects them too.

Me too. And I won't lie: I have to get past an instinctive political tribalism to say this.

What's extra frustrating is the moments where you're having a conversation with someone who's supposedly on the left and you realize that their blind spot is class.

Brilliant post. And you put it so clearly

But Haxxor put exactly the same case as Lisa. So I don't understand why you have such an issue with what Lisa is saying?

“What's extra frustrating is the moments where you're having a conversation with someone who's supposedly on the left and you realize that their blind spot is class.”

Yy aak!!!

But Haxxor put exactly the same case as Lisa. So I don't understand why you have such an issue with what Lisa is saying?

I said it before. Its presentation. Its like people are talking different languages.

I do think there is a real barrier - which involves class - here over communication skills.

And those with power, should make greater effort to listen to the heart of a message rather than be so bothered by the packaging.

Groups that don't have shiny, clean presentation not only don't have as much opportunity to speak, but when they do they are criticised for how they do it.

I think we have been very conditioned to see politics through the lens of certain 'spin' and 'pr' standards - that restricts and limits the involvement of some.

Also I think it leads to people missing the point. Take Brexit:

Leaver: I want to leave because of all the immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs.
Remainer: You racist. Blah blah some stats about immigration being good.

The politicial message here is: 'There are no jobs and opportunities for people like me'.
The ideology that has been attached: 'The immigrants are to blame' is actually secondary to the problem that is being described. And the message is lost because of what is focused on. The ideology attached is something that has been offered as an explanation. The failure to have a conversation about an alternative explanation for why there are no jobs for people like the leaver is a lost opportunity.

It means that there is no opportunity to explore solutions to the problem and improve the situation which is a reality to the Leaver, and to neutralise the flawed ideology which is accompanying the statement.

Having conversations like that, also help to remove conflict and produce more productive politics. Every time you see politicians trying to produce conflict points they are actually trying to reduce conversation and isolate sections of society from each other.

Again, this is something that part of a pattern in wider politics.

If you are aware of the problem, and you are aware of techniques to try and break them down, you can start having much better conversations and make better political decisions for society as a whole. But at the moment, its largely being used against the population as a form of politicial mind control. By BOTH the left and right.

At the moment, the structure of communication is very much working for political leaderships and how they hold power at the expense of the wider population.

My point being - make the effort to UNDERSTAND what people are ACTUALLY saying and the message underneath they are trying to convey. Don't make assumptions and don't dismiss something because it initially feels awkward, spiky or not consistent with your bubble.

place marking

This is the most random thread I have ever read.

You don't understand. Everything is connected!

Anyone who suggests debate over women’s rights & women’s political representation should be seperated from discussions about austerity has clearly never found themselves wondering if there is enough emergency electric on the key meter to both finish their uni essay tonight AND power the toaster for their kids’ breakfast in the morning.

This reminds me of previous occasions when the women's movement was nearly getting some actual power, and a few random, articulate individuals would appear and suddenly people were arguing with each other instead.

Also placemarking, and brilliant post red 👍

Note: The role of the media is supposed to be the separation of the actually problem from the politics around it.

When you start using opinion pieces to the extent we currently have, you undermine the process of separating the problem from the politics. Instead you make the ideology more important and place more barriers to getting to the truth.

We have got an issue where 'the mediating class' as Lisa describes it, is no longer very good at separating the problem from the politics.

Also note:
The closer you get to an unpalatable truth, the more noise and reaction you start to get.
You get hostility, you get people resistant, uncooperative, angry, acting to protect their pride / reputation, tribal loyalties.
It doesn't matter what it is.
Whether it be a politicial issue or a big cock up at work. Same thing.

You will see any number of propaganda techniques being used in arguments, to hinder getting to the bottom of a problem / issue.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
Learn to spot them and call them out.

Focus on the heart of the issue. The very core of whats going on and its roots. That's how you solve problems.

And I ask you in that context, why is that Posie Parker video getting so much traction?

Frankly it should not matter WHO is saying what she does in that video. It could be an alien with three heads saying it. It could be a talking turtle.

Its the message thats important because of how stark, blunt and to the point it is.

You can spend hours examining Posie's intent, background, pick apart the wording, through about other things she's said and do a complete character assasination.

None of which alter the truth of what she says in that video. Cos its inescapable and thats what people, for whatever reason are trying to distract from.

Start thinking in terms of political messaging, 'If it was an alien saying this, would it still have value?'

Yes, Red, we find ourselves in the position where a professional commentariat - with left and right commentators both drawn from elite social closure - is earning ridiculous salaries while investigative journalists can barely scratch a living.

The idea that LOJ is a "journalist" is quite amusing to me. Imagine what would happen if he tried to investigate something and the facts he uncovered didn't support the conclusion he'd already reached.

I've been taking a look through some of the intellectual legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.

Letter from a Birmingham Jail feels especially relevant.

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue. ...

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom;...Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

That, the speech on the steps of Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery at the end of the march from Selma, and so much more. King's legacy would seem to support the need for plurality. He recognised the purblindness of some privileges and the policing of tone and objection to 'the way you go about it' (to paraphrase Joe Anderson's recent comments).

Martin Luther King Jr was a believer in the American Dream and the American Constitution which was founded on liberal democratic priniciples.

Read up on any of the founding fathers and their views on propaganda and freedom of the press and they also repeat this about the need for plurality. Jefferson is my fav but he's simply from the same political church as King.

Its about checks and balances to the system and a social contract in which all people have a stake which is equal to each other.

What has happened in recent years is that has been eroded, and you have an increasing number who are disenfranchised from that process and are aware of it and feel unable to challenge it. The idea that the American Dream was something for everyone and that, if they choose and they worked hard, would give them rewards has disappeared.

This has happened to a large number of very different groups. Its come out of austerity - and a stagnation in political ideas and exchange where there is now a dominate grouping which seems to be actively working to shut out others who do not replicate them.

Thus we have hit a crisis point, where the functions of liberal democracy are no longer working and there is no incentive to debate, engage or otherwise be respectful as it feels like other ways to power are more effective.

This is presenting itself in lots of different ways, but the root causes are all very similar.

The only way out of this mess is for individuals on both sides of the political spectrum - left and right - to work towards reestablishing a feeling where liberal democracy itself offers them something. It needs a reawaking of those values.

The UK is part of that - even though we don't have a constitution. We are currently in a time of that crisis where it is essential to make the points we need to and DISCUSS things and feel like we are engaging and getting something out of doing so, in the face of feeling unrepresented in formal political channels. There are numerous political crisis points currently springing up because of a systematic failure, so it is natural that many will seek to exploit this. Politicians can not plug all these holes all at once. Indeed Corbyn's current strategy is precisely about capitalising on that inevitability of the damn bursting, in order to trigger some sort of political revolution. You also have elements on the right under Arron Banks and Leave.EU agitating in exactly the same thing.

However, the question with that for me, is whether thats really a people's revolution as its being framed or whether its more just like regime change, which doesn't benefit the people as a whole.

This is why the need to organise and create a variety of grassroot type groups - on a number of political issues and ideas - not just over the TRA stuff is such a crucial thing in the next couple of years. Otherwise we will end up with something rather ugly imposed on us.

And as part of that, it is absoluetely crucial that we all have a good understanding of how democracy is supposed to work in order to tackle the challenges that social media and viralent aggressive populism present.

Do you self identify as on the left, on the right or as a centrist?

And is that correct?

This is a fascinating read.

medium.com/@nick.barlow/the-centrist-fallacy-43434642cb00?sk=cfdad8fb06018229b411a088d9b72834
The centrist fallacy

In both cases, we can see that the population as a whole isn’t arranged around what we might think is a moderate position. Voters’ views tend towards the ‘authoritarian’ and ‘left’ sides rather than clustering around the middle. (For more on this and how left-authoritarians are perhaps the largest and most unrepresented group in British politics, see the work of Paula Surridge on values and voting).

So, what we can already see is that despite people’s self-description of themselves politically clustering around the middle, their actual political views don’t.

In an odd juxtaposition, RTB and PP's (indirect) contribution are prompting vague memories of Naomi Klein's discussion of when we seemed to abandon precautionary principles in This Changes Everything.

There seem to be odd rumblings that are not dissimilar to Blockadia (spontaneous local uprisings of protest - such as protesting at prosecutions of women like Linda Bellos and Venice Allan - or wondering if we need to chain ourselves somewhere about the state of our prisons and schools as publicised in recent news items).

We need system change (as Klein would say) because of the radical social transformation that must be carried out in order to combat the ease with which (in this case) women's sex-based rights are in danger of being encroached upon and/or erased. (Austerity; re-languaging the legal category of "woman" in a way that impacts what should be our inalienable rights; the economic and social impact of Brexit that look as if they will disproportionately affect women and vulnerable demographics.)

In line with what RTB wrote about the necessity to understand how democracy works, Klein argues (iirc) that support for democracy has to come from everywhere - and that the space for democratic political and social manoeuvre needs to be expanded. We do this or we repeatedly miss historic opportunities where campaigns, allegiances, and coalitions can bring about the necessary system change.

From what I can see there are currently three distinct groups on the left when it comes to the Gender Debate:

The Traditionalists who think Boys should be Boys etc (Authoritarian Left)
The Gender Criticals (Liberal Left)
The Woke who pretend to be Liberal Left (Authorian Left)

Its an inherient tension. And a puzzle that can't be resolved easily for Labour.

Its easy to see how there is a squeeze within that when it comes to feminism generally. However Labour can not please everyone with that, and they need the votes of all these groups for power.

Another triangulation point Labour should be urgently considering: low turnouts are worse for them than they are for the Tories. Women staying at home because they have no-one to vote for is very bad for Labour.

You know, I have a very hard time believing that sex segregated spaces (as opposed to self ID and penises in women‘s spaces) would not be vote winners across the board. The woke one’s have the media amplifying their voices, but what are their numbers?

Maybe I am wrong but This reminds me very much of the situation in the US, where 70% of the electorate want single payer health care, and none of the major parties big shots (like Pelosi, Feinstein) will fight for it. (People who fight for it like Gabbard and Sanders and whoever else dares to go there are Outcast).

My impression is that much of the neoliberal shite has nothing to do with ‚being electable‘ but with money talking.

Another triangulation point Labour should be urgently considering: low turnouts are worse for them than they are for the Tories. Women staying at home because they have no-one to vote for is very bad for Labour.

Three words for you there

John McDonnell webchat.

Indeed! But we weren't such a pushover as he thought!

I think it all just highlights how fundamentally flawed our two party system is currently proving. Both main parties are simply playing a game of trying to juggle the balls between key factions. But that also means they are doing nothing but both-siderism in order to get power.

Which is why I lean towards Lisa's talk of a betrayal and warnings about the effect of tribalism. Women need to be really careful in this. Austerity and feminism are easy targets to try and avoid and put in a box to please certain groups for votes.

Ultimately Labour if they get into power, will inevitably be forced into a betrayal of some description. And that's most likely to come down to a numbers game.

But that will also lead to a backlash because it'll be impossible to square the circle.

Where that leads I have no idea, but we've already had a significant weakening of party loyalty amongst traditional types (who went to Ukip though have returned) and are now less loyal than they were. Labour in betraying another core group are risking a great deal in terms of tribalism in the long run.

I don't think we will see a political realignment of the parties yet, but I do think it will be on the cards in the not too distant future because of the hope thats being deliberately created as a political device that is impossible to reconcile.