Search results for "labour "

Anachronistic workers

Author: joe

Wednesday, 15 December, 2010 - 22:59

Someone asks, who are the workers? In so asking they suggest my Marxist reference to 'the worker' is anachronistic, or that by workers I must mean the 'chavs', or the immigrants who routinely take up the most menial jobs in society (and therefore could not possibly benefit from a Higher Education system).

Paradoxically, many people rebut polemics against the Coalition government's spending cuts, or criticise 'whinging' protesters, by demanding that they should get a job and stop relying on those who WORK! (The word is usually capitalised, thereby denoting what a RADICAL POLITICAL ACTION going to work really is).

The good honest worker, that mythical hero we all become when we think of how we sacrifice our precious free time to pay our way. All we must do is work, and the world around us magically transforms into a place of merit and recognition, advancement and reward, or a benign adventureland in which the vulnerable can finally sip from the luxurious cup of welfare.

The sign-system mobilised by such appeals to work carry the implication that the harder we work, the more deserving we are, and the better off we will be. He who works longest reaps the most reward. It feels almost insulting to point out the obvious fact - how can it be necessary to point it out!? - that it is generally those who work longest who earn the least, that value is transferred from the worker (whose labour value is diminished) to the commodity (whose fetishisation 'magically' creates value), and that those with the luxury of capital make a profit from those without it? It's Marxism 101, and I'd tire of teaching it if it were not so fucking fundamental to understanding the inequality in society.

Categories: marxism 101, work, labour,
Comments: 0

'Conference eaten by black hole,' wishes Joe

Author: joe

Tuesday, 26 September, 2006 - 23:44

Blair said you have to be a fully paid up member of the human race, before being a fully paid up member of the labour party. I think he was implying that that was what he was, first - a real person.

I am unconvinced. Thatcher was a fully paid up member of the human race. She could at least inspire hatred and anger, in unparalleled capacities. She lived among us, at least in the sense that we noticed her to the extent that we wanted to kill her, mercilessly, slowly, publicly and vindictively..

Blair is, on the contrary, scarcely worth the emotion. In twenty years' time, will people remember him with such convulsion - either positive or negative - as do people who lived through, and still react to, Maggie? I imagine his insides have been eaten away by spinning nano-bots, leaving a fully functioning shell of political veneer. But his estimation of his legacy surely betrays his excellent acting skills, else he must be Canut - 'Under this government, the tide is lower than when we came to power, while the summertime has not failed to arrive at least - but no more than - once a year. What other party can say the same?'

He inspires no Shipbuilding. The otherwise intelligent people I know who say that his heart is in the right place, seem to overlook that there is no heart. He believes in nothing but himself. Here is walking proof of the notion that socialists slide towards totalitarianism, and that capitalists tend to fascism. In his embrace of the third way he demonstrates that any glimpse of autocracy makes political figures of any persuasion succumb to the belief that they alone, can succeed in guiding a nation where all others will fail.

Thatcher had an Assisi-complex, but Blair has a messiah-complex, and like all messiahs (who are all fake), they are only partly human.

Categories: blair, labour, politics, thatcher, messiah, asshole,
Comments: 1