Literally why I've said if I'm wrong I'm wrong, please provide a clarification.
I think I've asked five times now.
Current Affairs The Landmarks of Slavery;
- Thread starter Eggs
- Start date
- Status
Literally why I've said if I'm wrong I'm wrong, please provide a clarification.
I think I've asked five times now.
dead_soft
Player Valuation: £35m
You’ve been told by him repeatedly that @tsubaki was summarising Oborne’s book as Sheedy asked him to. Even within that he never called for the overthrow of liberal democracy. It really looks like you had a desire to read it one way so made sure you did.
No one else has read that in to it and it’s a stretch to do so.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
this is bizarre - you've been asked to read the book before claiming its something bourgeois dictatorship related; thats it
Did you just forget the whole point of the discussion was that he said I've "backed the orthodoxy"?
My interpretation of what he said is on the basis that he doesn't therefore back the orthodoxy - by his own definition - and wants it replaced.
So he talked about the friction between the three major parties being a fiction and basically an internal squabble by the political class who are essentially all the same to solve their own issues and power struggles whilst maintaining overall class control. That the media is effectively a sham extenstion of politics. If an outsider challenges this, he is attacked by the collective political class to protect the whole.
I'm sorry, but that's a textbook definition of bourgeois dictatorship. It just is. If that wasn't the intent, then he can clarify, but your supposition that I was "mad" to come to that conclusion in the context of the discussion and words used is silly.
I haven't said the book is related to that; I've said I interpreted your comments on it as being very similar to a bourgeois dictatorship. I haven't read the book so I'm not commenting on the book; I am interpreting your words in relation to you saying I support the political orthodoxy.
Once again, if not, please clarify. All you keep saying is it's not that and not explaining why, despite repeated requests. Tell me what the difference is.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
the comments are a summary of the book, provided at the request of someone
if you disagree with the accuracy of the comments, read the book
You said I support the orthodoxy, someone asked you what that means, you then described the orthodoxy in terms that closely relate to a bourgeois dictatorship, at least in my eyes.
You say they do not.
I'm asking you, not the book, to tell me why your comments are different and are wildly off kilter with the definition of a bourgeois dictatorship. Because you made the initial supposition that I "support orthodoxy".
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
Ding Ding GIF - Carl Weathers Ding Ding Apollo Creed - Discover & Share GIFs
Click to view the GIF
tenor.com
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Does it not concern you at all that noone, in the thirteen years since that book was published, has ever said "you know, Oborne is talking about a bourgeois dictatorship"? If you want me to say why it isn't the same as a bourgeois dictatorship then fine - the system as described by Oborne isn't run for the benefit of the bourgeois.
As for you supporting the prevailing orthodoxy of these past twenty years, I'd say that is fairly well established by your posting history here.
Again, I'm not talking about the book - I'm talking solely about your words and interpretation of it.
Now to your answer, a simple follow up question is - why? Why isn't it the same? You are just saying it's not the same and not saying why that is. What's the difference?
So is this:
An unfair interpretation of this:
Current Affairs - The Landmarks of Slavery;
To which orthodoxy are you referring? Just read Oborne's book "The Triumph of the Political Class"
If so, why?
That's all. No book. Just your words.
Hi guys. Can you tell me how to get to the ‘pulling down statues’ thread?
Shevin Keedy
Player Valuation: £35m
I see we are at stalemate. No one is giving an inch.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Tubey - I appreciate this is going to fall on entirely deaf ears, but you cannot plausibly talk about my interpretation of the book if you have not read it. I would have thought that would have been obvious, but it seems not.
As for the dictatorship of the bourgeois, again without you actually reading the book (or it seems knowing what the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is) it is really difficult to explain to you the difference, but I will make an entirely vain attempt to do so:
In Oborne's book, he says that the political class is progressively trying to take over / subvert / destroy "the Establishment", ie: the old ruling class with its intrests in land, the country, the monarch and so on. If there is any state that would be the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, then it is "the Establishment" - though IMHO even that is questionable because it wasn't really created by and run on behalf of the capitalist class (it was an older form of state that co-opted capitalists into it, but had until now never lost power).
So is this:
An unfair interpretation of this:
Current Affairs - The Landmarks of Slavery;
To which orthodoxy are you referring? Just read Oborne's book "The Triumph of the Political Class"www.grandoldteam.com
If so, why?
That's all. No book. Just your words.
I don't know, I havent seen where that quote is from and can't therefore see the context.
? It's from a post of my own above.
OK so from the above, the blue bit, which was the critical missing information, isn't a valid critique being that if the political class destroys the establishment (arguably that's being/been done so in the UK for a very long time in relation to the monarchy and the rising power of Parliament), then by your own definition of how interchangable they are and that the power struggle in politics is a fiction, don't they become the new establishment, indistinguishable from the old in terms of their aim?
This is the best single line definition of what I mean by borgeois dictatorship:
So therefore the critique of this new orthodoxy is surely that they're the same as the old, with a liberal democracy coat on instead of a monarchist one.
Bizarrely, you took me labelling your views as an attack on your interpretation of it. In actuality, I think the above is true, and that liberal democracy has enabled the political class to dominate and secure itself with the veil of democracy as a shield. That's actually my view. My problem is that I can't see the viable alternative to liberal democracy, or the ability for it to be inherently exploited, mostly due to it's practical dominance since the French Revolution. Nobody has proven one exists in practice.
- Status