We are accepting suggestions on whether this should be called the cyborglite saga or the cyborglité saga. Please give your input, it is highly appreciated.
Views on Corbyn's problems? I think you're right that he shuld consolidate his politics. Some studies are saying his might be the dominant views in the Labour Party members still elected, after the election. That would heelp
Corbyn's 'detractors' merely offer reasons to further direct the Party in a 'radical' direction. If Corbyn is indeed in a tenuous position, and hence his politics too, the last thing that's necessary is to have yet another major Party turning against them. Especially if they were to be 'well-led' in such a situation. However, all 'leaders' under capital are weak and subordinate, however seemingly when someone wants to resist some aspect of the domestic system they are called 'weak.' It seems like the attacks are a smokescreen to hide their own deficiencies.
Politics which were almost 'dead' are an easy target, but what is paradoxical is that their opponents expect them to also feel contrition for hanging in there. They are expected to be 'civil,' and sacrifice themselves while encouraging others to further bury the knife. Nonetheless, there is a certain desire to 'avenge' this scenario or try to hang in politics and eke out a place, which is positive in the Corbynite segment.
Hence, if Corbyn can present a clear 'either/or' situation or clear platform, if placed in a difficult situation, they can at least try to have the voters vote for Labour MPs mostly in more radical areas - and for candidates in harmony with this message. Then they are more likely to exclude and diminish the influence of obstructing elements, which have plagued the Party and prevented it from a real campaign. It seems queer that after trying to fight off and vilify Corbyn in internal elections, etc., just a brief time before an election, people are content to just once again blame him. But they will not rest until they are quieted.
A political Party with people of diametrically opposed political aims is ultimately an illusion. These elections should not be focussed on, and we have seen little need to. Besides, elections decide a period of 4 years, which is only of any historical import by chance. We don't tend to cover them in detail, preferring to look at the political scene and the dynamics involved. Nonetheless, thanks for asking.
The Daily Mail recently reported that Corbyn was being called 'radioactive.' This seems like a strange call-back to Chernobyl. Clearly if he's not being voted for, this is not a property of his, but of the voters. Britain has long been a US satellite, so the USA evidently also has a notable influence on British politics. Someone like Corbyn is hardly likely to win out in one election, in such a situation. It's all manufactured urgency, when conventional electoral politics is a smokescreen which pretends distinctions between identical imperialist conservatives.
Of course, 'Conservatives' react, they don't particularly stand for anything. So evidently 'conservatives' will eventually be led into the opposition Party, trying to reform them. They will respond to aggravation and try to calm it, but in their own Party this aggravation is minimal. They have to go where the problems are, to confront them. Nonetheless, Conservatives in either Party (and 'Labour' is mostly just a phrase, so what does it matter which Party they join?) are always the predominant mode. The most conservative segments are those which ally with the USA's conservatives, as UK politics is ultimately derived from US politics. Those under Corbyn are trying to distance from this, for instance by trying to show contrition for wars that the government deceived people into. Nonetheless, even with them this is limited.
The problem is that the Corbynites have still tried to give the impression that it is still slightly indifferent which Party is voted for or discussed. What is necessary instead is to form a Party in which radical politics can entrench itself and be clearly formulated. As the phrase 'looney left' suggests, people can often be scared off by radicals or even motions in that direction. Hence, preventing other elements from getting a foot-hold in the Party need not be difficult. They do not want to fight, they do not care for the Party if it is run by elements opposed to most of what they care for. The bourgeois-supporting conservative elements, that would rather more policies to support the bourgeois and further entrench their apparent position, would rather run far away from a Party involving radicals and a critique of the 'rigged economic system.' It's too much for them. Hence, the main problem once they have run off or are - as is presently the case - closing their ears and incessantly shouting the same slurs against Corbyn, is to deal with what is left behind. Although they are not there, they are watching and trying to keep discipline. In addition, they have already set in motion a certain mode of performing the political process.
This is important. The mode of doing politics is highly entrenched in a 'bourgeois' scenario, as it is native to this and taken for granted - and also hard to shake. In this context, Corbyn is not supposed to do well, or even stay in place. Nonetheless, if Corbyn and co. keep on performing in the Party, sooner or later they are expected to play pre-existent roles in a play ill-suited to them. Say that someone trying to perform Hamlet were to have to play Anne Hathaway from Havoc. It might be awkward or a mismatch, and people will go after that. Nonetheless, people do not want to near something as 'dangerous' as Corbynite radicalism, targetting much of what they value, unless they actually support it. So while Corbyn, etc., do get some respite due to operating in a 'clearing' with dissenters on the run and disorganised, they nonetheless have not adapted the mode of politics around them. They are also being rushed, in order to avoid doing this and remaining in an unfavorable dynamic. They have space and must use it.
Thanks, Deacon, and we might touch on similar matters later. We still have a slight stalemate in the vote here. Perhaps we should call a hung parliament/Wrestlemania to sort it out.
So Zanthorus recently posted on RM about elections. I won't link it. They said that it doesn't matter. Morpertinent, they seem to agree with your conclusion. Opinions?
I wouldn't give esteem to anything said on RM about elections, nowadays. It's bound to be terrible.. Anyway someone else might want to give feedback, for nostalgia sake.
Though Gigi Hadid is just another example of jihadis commendably destroying America to replace it with humorous in-jokes.
...Oh, as to the Zanthorus post. Their conclusion about why elections 'don't matter' would apply to everyone that voted. They each vote as particular persons, a positive aspect of elections which at least gives people the freedom to vote without others haggling and pressuring them. Of course, their vote nonetheless has to 'matter,' despite this, or the elections could never have a result. To say that these votes have no impact - compared to what? - is a slightly empty suggestion.
We nonetheless acknowledge that they end on a similar note. We appreciate this.
It could be said that electoral politics is a trap, but in a quite different sense. We're not sure if they're even trying to say that electoral politics is a trap, which does not follow from their suggestions. Their post also seems like something more apt in a different election - in this one, 'radicals' are not irrelevant. If people aren't radical, it's because they choose not to be. They are presented the choice, as they always should be. It is the only other real choice, something like it must always be in elections. Any other politics of worth must derive from it.
The substance of a position like President or Prime Minister, like Soylent Green, is people. When a person goes on a stage, and is only supposed to speak because they are 'President,' they aren't speaking as a person or due to any trait or property of their own. They are rather speaking as a composite of votes, or rather as a composite of people voting. To say a 'vote' is to say a 'voter.' Hence, what gets on the stage is actually an awkward composite of people somehow welded together. The people hence face themselves as something apart from them, that they are barred from approaching. This is slightly like death. The politicians likewise face a situation of being something they are in fact not, and they cannot be. Elections are like a rush towards extinction, better to watch or manipulate than to vote in. So yes, they could be treated as a trap.
Further, the kind of bleeding-heart politics often prevalent accentuates this. People are to be concerned about things in political life that they cannot be concerned about in capitalism's division - or should not. They are hence forced to act against themselves, somewhat like a disease. The cycle of self-undermining is quite thorough unless radical elements are involved. Otherwise, one has only vulgarised capital. Which is essentially to let the system undermine you - however, the system is comprised of human action and interaction, and hence this being undermined is actually your own dynamic of self-undermining. You act in harmony with a system that is not harmonic, because you like 'harmony' and 'integration' - the answer is to stop, the consequence if not is self-harm. However, all systems are in disharmony, because the people in them need not be harmonic. So it's not a problem with capital in that sense - rather a trait which it makes explicit.
In any case, then, the system is far more stringent than the people in it. They could be said to represent it unfairly. However, it allows for this. Because the economic system is complex, and people are hemmed in to small, local and particularised lives, there is a large realm of seemingly religious or vaguely glimpsed yet important things. This hence means that the religious is nearly inevitable. Nonetheless, it detracts from recognition of or aiding the actual social system.
The radical is the basis of political struggles of worth. If these appear to wish to dissociate, they are merely trying to expropriate from it without recompense. They must not turn against it, or they are nothing. Positing or suggesting the radical explicitly hence undermines the pseudo-left, who must try to oppose the basis of all their worth, and hence become worthless.
While Clinton's movement was apolitical trash, compared to which the cynical elements of Trump's movement were of far more interest, elsewhere a 'far-left' of sorts is operating in several major countries. Each aspect of this must start to hang in, and help this movement establish itself and support its international kin. In addition, cynical themes of other movements are being enriched, as with those of the Trump movement which have been used to criticise the system as crooked - which you suppose is accurate. This sort of bitter cynicism helps to encourage dissent. It occasionally turns up in movements like Trump's, and the turn against leading Parties in the 'Brexit' vote. Well, quite apart from the Trump movement's Zionism, etc. Zionism prohibits true cynicism from flowering. The locus of British politics has in any case shifted away from the major Parties, and we should only favour a focus of any sort returning there so far as they are critical and worthwhile. As Corbyn's movement is.
While elections are in many ways a trap, they are also a trap in another way. Elections are generally voted on by people, not by groups. Very well, groups can't vote; only people may. Hence, they have to be treated accordingly. All groups in capitalism or such remain in mutual animosity. Where many of them belonged. In election, where division is emphasised, this aspect is predominant. Such things, again, undermine themselves by freely voting in elections. Well, if they care.
Emphasising such things can be useful, as it causes divisions within Parties, and causes them to stop focussing on you. Because Conservatives tend to be parasitic, they don't want to stop focussing on their opponents. Hence, it's useful for them when opponents focus on harmony and etc., as it means they get their work done for them.
Elections get people into unhealthy or self-undermining behaviour. This is ultimately destructive.
Nonetheless, while we appreciate focussing on social movements, we have a different perspective on elections. These elections are one which offer opportunities for covertly using the electoral structure and the drawing of people into territory which is different from their usual capitalistic existence, by using this terrain to distort other areas. If Corbyn can help give his movement some concrete significance and aesthetic, while everyone is looking away at the dramatic events, then it will be closely embedded in how politics works. This need not be difficult, and the rest can always work itself out.
For one thing, Corbynite politics is revolutionary and hence striking and exciting, while a Conservative politics is never this. All of the dramatic elements of the election could easily be assimilated to the Corbynites, and continually re-shaped in accordance. Theresa May's Party cannot legitimately 'outshine' this, and hence relies on more covert ways of doing this. However, they do not do this in the Conservative aspect of their program, where they cannot appear special at all. To do any favours for Conservatives is the real 'populism,' they make themselves seem such ordinary and insubstantial beings that nobody would praise this but for populist spirit. Hence, at this point their Party can be placed in the background, which is merely to recognise how things are. The monarchy that they support are further in the background, so they can be dragged further. Finally, Corbyn can be direct and radical, rather than needing a 'sheen' to it, because their politics are dramatic if put forwards and this under-cuts anything attempted elsewhere - which is merely a forgery or attempt to emulate this. In any case, it is a terrain which should be acknowledged, but also treated critically and without rushing in.
We are accepting suggestions on whether this should be called the cyborglite saga or the cyborglité saga. Please give your input, it is highly appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI prefer cyborglité, more glam
ReplyDeleteAn acceptable suggestion, especially poignant given the USA's recently reported use of missiles.
Deletehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce0ThjpWF0w
I'll vote for cyborglite, no acccent. I'm okay if it has cyborg in it..
DeleteCyborglité! Sounds fancy
DeleteAn exciting intro I should like this
ReplyDeleteViews on Corbyn's problems? I think you're right that he shuld consolidate his politics. Some studies are saying his might be the dominant views in the Labour Party members still elected, after the election. That would heelp
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
DeleteCorbyn's 'detractors' merely offer reasons to further direct the Party in a 'radical' direction. If Corbyn is indeed in a tenuous position, and hence his politics too, the last thing that's necessary is to have yet another major Party turning against them. Especially if they were to be 'well-led' in such a situation. However, all 'leaders' under capital are weak and subordinate, however seemingly when someone wants to resist some aspect of the domestic system they are called 'weak.' It seems like the attacks are a smokescreen to hide their own deficiencies.
Politics which were almost 'dead' are an easy target, but what is paradoxical is that their opponents expect them to also feel contrition for hanging in there. They are expected to be 'civil,' and sacrifice themselves while encouraging others to further bury the knife. Nonetheless, there is a certain desire to 'avenge' this scenario or try to hang in politics and eke out a place, which is positive in the Corbynite segment.
Hence, if Corbyn can present a clear 'either/or' situation or clear platform, if placed in a difficult situation, they can at least try to have the voters vote for Labour MPs mostly in more radical areas - and for candidates in harmony with this message. Then they are more likely to exclude and diminish the influence of obstructing elements, which have plagued the Party and prevented it from a real campaign. It seems queer that after trying to fight off and vilify Corbyn in internal elections, etc., just a brief time before an election, people are content to just once again blame him. But they will not rest until they are quieted.
A political Party with people of diametrically opposed political aims is ultimately an illusion. These elections should not be focussed on, and we have seen little need to. Besides, elections decide a period of 4 years, which is only of any historical import by chance. We don't tend to cover them in detail, preferring to look at the political scene and the dynamics involved. Nonetheless, thanks for asking.
Good point about elections!! I agree with thatt direction
DeleteLike the siege mentality kind of approach to British politics, you summarized it well.
The Daily Mail recently reported that Corbyn was being called 'radioactive.' This seems like a strange call-back to Chernobyl. Clearly if he's not being voted for, this is not a property of his, but of the voters. Britain has long been a US satellite, so the USA evidently also has a notable influence on British politics. Someone like Corbyn is hardly likely to win out in one election, in such a situation. It's all manufactured urgency, when conventional electoral politics is a smokescreen which pretends distinctions between identical imperialist conservatives.
DeleteOf course, 'Conservatives' react, they don't particularly stand for anything. So evidently 'conservatives' will eventually be led into the opposition Party, trying to reform them. They will respond to aggravation and try to calm it, but in their own Party this aggravation is minimal. They have to go where the problems are, to confront them. Nonetheless, Conservatives in either Party (and 'Labour' is mostly just a phrase, so what does it matter which Party they join?) are always the predominant mode. The most conservative segments are those which ally with the USA's conservatives, as UK politics is ultimately derived from US politics. Those under Corbyn are trying to distance from this, for instance by trying to show contrition for wars that the government deceived people into. Nonetheless, even with them this is limited.
The problem is that the Corbynites have still tried to give the impression that it is still slightly indifferent which Party is voted for or discussed. What is necessary instead is to form a Party in which radical politics can entrench itself and be clearly formulated. As the phrase 'looney left' suggests, people can often be scared off by radicals or even motions in that direction. Hence, preventing other elements from getting a foot-hold in the Party need not be difficult. They do not want to fight, they do not care for the Party if it is run by elements opposed to most of what they care for. The bourgeois-supporting conservative elements, that would rather more policies to support the bourgeois and further entrench their apparent position, would rather run far away from a Party involving radicals and a critique of the 'rigged economic system.' It's too much for them. Hence, the main problem once they have run off or are - as is presently the case - closing their ears and incessantly shouting the same slurs against Corbyn, is to deal with what is left behind. Although they are not there, they are watching and trying to keep discipline. In addition, they have already set in motion a certain mode of performing the political process.
This is important. The mode of doing politics is highly entrenched in a 'bourgeois' scenario, as it is native to this and taken for granted - and also hard to shake. In this context, Corbyn is not supposed to do well, or even stay in place. Nonetheless, if Corbyn and co. keep on performing in the Party, sooner or later they are expected to play pre-existent roles in a play ill-suited to them. Say that someone trying to perform Hamlet were to have to play Anne Hathaway from Havoc. It might be awkward or a mismatch, and people will go after that. Nonetheless, people do not want to near something as 'dangerous' as Corbynite radicalism, targetting much of what they value, unless they actually support it. So while Corbyn, etc., do get some respite due to operating in a 'clearing' with dissenters on the run and disorganised, they nonetheless have not adapted the mode of politics around them. They are also being rushed, in order to avoid doing this and remaining in an unfavorable dynamic. They have space and must use it.
Thanks, Deacon, and we might touch on similar matters later. We still have a slight stalemate in the vote here. Perhaps we should call a hung parliament/Wrestlemania to sort it out.
So Zanthorus recently posted on RM about elections. I won't link it. They said that it doesn't matter. Morpertinent, they seem to agree with your conclusion. Opinions?
DeleteI wouldn't give esteem to anything said on RM about elections, nowadays. It's bound to be terrible.. Anyway someone else might want to give feedback, for nostalgia sake.
DeleteI guess at least if it's another site you're referencing someone who can give decent comments.
DeleteThanks to ZN for the commentary on the elections.. Opinions on the Labour Party's currentss?
We don't much like Zayn Malik...
ReplyDeleteThough Gigi Hadid is just another example of jihadis commendably destroying America to replace it with humorous in-jokes.
...Oh, as to the Zanthorus post. Their conclusion about why elections 'don't matter' would apply to everyone that voted. They each vote as particular persons, a positive aspect of elections which at least gives people the freedom to vote without others haggling and pressuring them. Of course, their vote nonetheless has to 'matter,' despite this, or the elections could never have a result. To say that these votes have no impact - compared to what? - is a slightly empty suggestion.
We nonetheless acknowledge that they end on a similar note. We appreciate this.
It could be said that electoral politics is a trap, but in a quite different sense. We're not sure if they're even trying to say that electoral politics is a trap, which does not follow from their suggestions. Their post also seems like something more apt in a different election - in this one, 'radicals' are not irrelevant. If people aren't radical, it's because they choose not to be. They are presented the choice, as they always should be. It is the only other real choice, something like it must always be in elections. Any other politics of worth must derive from it.
The substance of a position like President or Prime Minister, like Soylent Green, is people. When a person goes on a stage, and is only supposed to speak because they are 'President,' they aren't speaking as a person or due to any trait or property of their own. They are rather speaking as a composite of votes, or rather as a composite of people voting. To say a 'vote' is to say a 'voter.' Hence, what gets on the stage is actually an awkward composite of people somehow welded together. The people hence face themselves as something apart from them, that they are barred from approaching. This is slightly like death. The politicians likewise face a situation of being something they are in fact not, and they cannot be. Elections are like a rush towards extinction, better to watch or manipulate than to vote in. So yes, they could be treated as a trap.
Further, the kind of bleeding-heart politics often prevalent accentuates this. People are to be concerned about things in political life that they cannot be concerned about in capitalism's division - or should not. They are hence forced to act against themselves, somewhat like a disease. The cycle of self-undermining is quite thorough unless radical elements are involved. Otherwise, one has only vulgarised capital. Which is essentially to let the system undermine you - however, the system is comprised of human action and interaction, and hence this being undermined is actually your own dynamic of self-undermining. You act in harmony with a system that is not harmonic, because you like 'harmony' and 'integration' - the answer is to stop, the consequence if not is self-harm. However, all systems are in disharmony, because the people in them need not be harmonic. So it's not a problem with capital in that sense - rather a trait which it makes explicit.
(Continued.)
DeleteIn any case, then, the system is far more stringent than the people in it. They could be said to represent it unfairly. However, it allows for this. Because the economic system is complex, and people are hemmed in to small, local and particularised lives, there is a large realm of seemingly religious or vaguely glimpsed yet important things. This hence means that the religious is nearly inevitable. Nonetheless, it detracts from recognition of or aiding the actual social system.
The radical is the basis of political struggles of worth. If these appear to wish to dissociate, they are merely trying to expropriate from it without recompense. They must not turn against it, or they are nothing. Positing or suggesting the radical explicitly hence undermines the pseudo-left, who must try to oppose the basis of all their worth, and hence become worthless.
While Clinton's movement was apolitical trash, compared to which the cynical elements of Trump's movement were of far more interest, elsewhere a 'far-left' of sorts is operating in several major countries. Each aspect of this must start to hang in, and help this movement establish itself and support its international kin. In addition, cynical themes of other movements are being enriched, as with those of the Trump movement which have been used to criticise the system as crooked - which you suppose is accurate. This sort of bitter cynicism helps to encourage dissent. It occasionally turns up in movements like Trump's, and the turn against leading Parties in the 'Brexit' vote. Well, quite apart from the Trump movement's Zionism, etc. Zionism prohibits true cynicism from flowering. The locus of British politics has in any case shifted away from the major Parties, and we should only favour a focus of any sort returning there so far as they are critical and worthwhile. As Corbyn's movement is.
While elections are in many ways a trap, they are also a trap in another way. Elections are generally voted on by people, not by groups. Very well, groups can't vote; only people may. Hence, they have to be treated accordingly. All groups in capitalism or such remain in mutual animosity. Where many of them belonged. In election, where division is emphasised, this aspect is predominant. Such things, again, undermine themselves by freely voting in elections. Well, if they care.
(Continued.)
DeleteEmphasising such things can be useful, as it causes divisions within Parties, and causes them to stop focussing on you. Because Conservatives tend to be parasitic, they don't want to stop focussing on their opponents. Hence, it's useful for them when opponents focus on harmony and etc., as it means they get their work done for them.
Elections get people into unhealthy or self-undermining behaviour. This is ultimately destructive.
Nonetheless, while we appreciate focussing on social movements, we have a different perspective on elections. These elections are one which offer opportunities for covertly using the electoral structure and the drawing of people into territory which is different from their usual capitalistic existence, by using this terrain to distort other areas. If Corbyn can help give his movement some concrete significance and aesthetic, while everyone is looking away at the dramatic events, then it will be closely embedded in how politics works. This need not be difficult, and the rest can always work itself out.
For one thing, Corbynite politics is revolutionary and hence striking and exciting, while a Conservative politics is never this. All of the dramatic elements of the election could easily be assimilated to the Corbynites, and continually re-shaped in accordance. Theresa May's Party cannot legitimately 'outshine' this, and hence relies on more covert ways of doing this. However, they do not do this in the Conservative aspect of their program, where they cannot appear special at all. To do any favours for Conservatives is the real 'populism,' they make themselves seem such ordinary and insubstantial beings that nobody would praise this but for populist spirit. Hence, at this point their Party can be placed in the background, which is merely to recognise how things are. The monarchy that they support are further in the background, so they can be dragged further. Finally, Corbyn can be direct and radical, rather than needing a 'sheen' to it, because their politics are dramatic if put forwards and this under-cuts anything attempted elsewhere - which is merely a forgery or attempt to emulate this. In any case, it is a terrain which should be acknowledged, but also treated critically and without rushing in.
We'll use this for a post on here later.
Thanks a lot, by the way!
ReplyDeleteAmazing summary..
No problem.
Delete