Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Strikes, NHS in Constant Crisis & Work-Averse Youth. Also is Tory Britain a Social Democracy?" video.

  1. Comment on Emma Webb's question at 15:00mins in: Are we living in a socialist Britain under socialist..(?)? Its hard to answer this question as it presupposes either a single answer for a homogeneous population, or a multiplicity of answers as it refers to a plural population. So I will say that socialism has certainly "materialised" or subulated from its Spectral presence in the 80s and 90s. The old pre-1980's Marxist Spectre was as a proposition or principle something like: from those with most to those with least (with some adjustments with respect to categories of people for policy implementation targeting). The new Socialism schematises this principle from its individual nominal reference to reference mediated by particular respect for certain categories of people. To put it rather brutally, with the categories in play at the moment we have socialism as: from white men to women and ethnic minorities and LGBTQ+ people, (with some adjustments as to wealth). So in this the white man is a priori the gifter, only adjusted for wealth. Critics of this new socialism tell a story here just about the rise of academic and intellectual postmodernism and its march though the institutions. But although it was on the march or better crawl, what gave it affordance was the 2008 financial Crisis and the threatened collapse of the middle class housing market Ponzi scheme. So in the face of the threat of middle class catastrophic collapse we were told of the necessity for us all to do a bank bail out to save the economy, which conveniently saved and then increased the middle class house price bubble value with the various QE programs. It was the case that the middleclass housing bubble was ok for them because they knew that any total structural problem of losses for them would also be, as double effect, an existential catastrophic problem for the country. This because any macro middle class general house price fall would manifest on the Banks balance sheets as an un-survivable collapse of the banks in total, due to the banks having everything on the same balance sheet. So the particular social category of middle class profit from the housing bubble of unearned passive income, and when it reached a point of failure, was bailed out by all the general people of this country. the transfer was done at the margin of tax without any reference to endowments. This allowed the coalition government to claim to be following a principle of biggest shoulders contribute the biggest amount. this at the same time as we were told by the middle class media various complex and manufactured alternative reasons fort he collapse non of which were easy to understand and convincing. Following this then the middle class left move in with postmodernism "ready to hand" "present to hand", long worked out feminist and racism agenda. This then deflected the politic authorship and responsibility away from the middleclass to the white man. In this post socialism they started off with a principle representing the Ponzi scheme as a "socialism" of wealth to the rich from the poor. with this false interpretation they were able to deflect from themselves and outsource the political fall out to white men while claiming to be on the side of minorities and women in international justice. Also this coordination of approach by the middle class allowed them to divide all the poor against each other, while claiming to defend the ones most at risk. That was the convenience of the middleclass social justice politics. the cos tis people cannot talk to each other easily now, due to this middleclass ordinance there is continual fear of white men saying the wrong thing and getting the unwritten and ever changing rules wrong. Now just like in 2010, there is the temptation to use that right wing ready to to hand present to hand political tactic of blame the poor for being lazy unskilled in need of some coercive existential threat to force them into some work. The trouble with this is its so obvious a victim blaming tactic now as it convinces no one. Like worn out coin due to over use or over supply. The possible consequence of all this is obvious from 20th century history, and is deeply undesirable, it too loves forced labour on the poor, but its more extreme manifestations we are constantly individually and as a category existentially at risk of being labelled with by..yes the middleclass in their houses paid for by the poor. So i ask you, why should white men want to join this system of socialism of losses for the middle class and capitalism of profits for the middleclass. I mean maybe some are ok with it so long as they can get into that middle class category, eg a principle of equal opportunity to get into the position to sacrifice the lives of the lower class for ones own profit while telling them you are an agent of the correction of white mans historical injustice and inequity. I think for think that for the white male lower classes not only has the Social Contract being broken, but any non-middleclass sanctioned political response, by white men draws the accusation of them being the "nots" in their schemas of who wins and who gets help. eg not ethnic minority, not female not LGBTQ+, not highly skilled. White man as being the left over set by both schemas. Now, with the help of present to hand and ready to hand, middle class psychology and mental health assessments of risk we feel monitored for any sign we do not agree with middle class breaking of Social Contract and accept their middle class outsourced blame as indicative of being at risk or a risk. They used to talk about lazy troublesome slaves too, the middleclass that is who have re-presented themselves as exculpated from blame for there central and key roles roils in the last 100 years of politics and war and just blame white men whoa re not middleclass and not of the chosen special groups. there is the reason as an answer to your question.
    1
  2. The New Social Contract, we are all meant to sign together and in agreement as to content, has: a front facing part, that says axiomatically:: reflexively and in self referential identity to the middle class: its in your self interest to sign, and "us" signers get the right to be custodians of justice and the good, so only "we" get to put the content in "our" contract;. and a back facing part that shouts causally, and materially, to the poor: you as the named right holders are metaphysically and naturally only capable of self interest. To those in the middle it says: you can either be classed as one of them, or become one of "us", classifying them, in there's, and ours, self-interest .
    1