harvey young
The New Culture Forum
comments
Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Gaza & Migrant Protests Infiltrated by Radicals + Is Progressive Politics Dead? + Local Elections" video.
Part 1: Amy Gallagher's point at 6:00 mins in about the imposition of State Guardians for children/families, so children have two parents one being a the "State parent", in Scotland. its easy to see how this can appear to be deduced from the concept of international/internal right along when expressed through a combination of individual risk, combined with international social justice that schematises the individual under identity determinations derived from now a whole world data analysis by identities, that are then fed into determine national identity. Thus two metric of risk are in play: one that views the individual and family w.r.t identity as membership in whole world identity sets and risk, along with the view of that same individual and family viewed as members of that identity with respect to national risk. The use of risk here is not raw data but already identity specific in its framework of risk derived though mass identity schemas. It can thus be a simple system of positive feed back, or self fulfilling prophesy because: the identity-schematic data collection begins with the idea of identity specific risks then, collects data based on this semantic that will always just produce more supporting data and no exculpatory or contra data.
The origin or genesis of this original schematic of data can be illustrated from the rise in the 1970's first in the US then hear in UK, of women's groups and communes. These grew up out of the anti Vietnam War protests initially by middle class white students. Indeed the anti Vietnam War protests, in turn, developed from the late 50's early 60's Civil Rights protests. A lesson perhaps, the hard core of protest groups, learn how to organise, develop skills in what they now call creating "Solidarities", and when one protest succeeds or fails then move on to another. as they move they can change or modify the data collection schema. Way back following the 2008 financial Crisis, the Conservative MP John Redwood, did a lecture ostensibly on the movement of Capital in falling financial markets, at Gresham Collage titled something like "Does every bust mean a boom somewhere else?" The investments have to go somewhere, like a kind of assumption of symmetry, eg the conservation of capital over time. Its not that money cannot be lost but rather that its does not as such just disappear.
Now, the schematic data collection has also been justified in terms of Social Justice, by identity schemas of John Rawls's "Theory of Justice". Problem is Rawls neither thinks first in terms of identities schemas, or from the point of view of the whole world. The left have combined both these and argued for them from out of Rawls work in the 1970-1990s. Rawls offers the individual in the State against these schemas, he then remains anti Hegelian w.r.t the individual but, perhaps not so anti-Hegelian w.r.t. the speculative interpretation now of many on the left, that the international is the appropriate view for politics. Indeed Rawls did claim the "privilege" or original position of people of the State here before of the world of international law. In this he contrasts with Peter Singer's 1972 paper on prior international obligations and duties.
Now what opponents of this need to be able to do is to argue for the family and children and parents as a basic category or ethical determination against the forces of legal economic individualism, and legal and economic international justice, supported by expanding data collections across the world though local and international funded organisations. Already we might feel we need a left like solidarity of families across the world, say trying to draw on international laws of The Rights to Family and a Culture, and so frame its justification in terms of international law and create there own data of state family intervention harms. That is obviously very difficult will take a long time and might even end up making a trap that returns you back to the lefts position.
(Note I've just started catching up on the BBC Radio 4 Series "In our Time" after, it turns out, a two years hiatus. They have recently done programs on Aristotle's Ethics, Rawls Theory of Justice, and Anscombe, and Hegel's Philosophy of History.) Indeed the point i am making about the family is mentioned in the Aristotle's Ethics as against Plato, in that program at 9:00 mins in. This is not then a new problem. I haven't watched any further, and I've watched non of the others yet either.
1
Part 2: Let me try a different approach that i started to develop over 15 years ago. It is clear that Rights can be viewed as facing inwards or internally in the State, and facing outwards to the international super State context. On the one hand people think of Rights as laws as necessarily being mutually and internal constant. They know there are "challenges" but these are seen as so much details and ad hoc modification problems to the basic schema of identity. The problems are not viewed as fundamental challenges to the whole project justification. For the left going back to the early 1970's these are problems of priorities say of identities as women and as a member of an ethnic minority. They are problems we could call both psychological and in terms of the economics of distribution of welfare. In the case say of international welfare we might appeal to risk and harm and justice and allocate financial resources from the State to a third world country. We might also consider Rights of people to welfare in their State by identity and so allocate resources accordingly. These Justice and risk projects then face in opposite direction from the point of view of a State. Even in the case of the same concepts a of identity this is true. Now as projects these have their allocated money their targets and their many employees working in these projects. A person might even be involved in both projects. But when wee view them in terms of money, we see they are in conflict: between the internal obligations and the external demands. now a pure utilitarian will, just say look at harm as a transcendent metric and do the allocation from the global view according to most need. Any problems with this would be claimed as "change is difficult" and there will, be a "political struggle" for a time, within the State for the the proper utility risk metric to be recognised to determine the political regardless of local and national democratic resistance. But either way as money geos to one it does not go to the other a kind of conservation of financial expenditure. For these two be seen as genuine non reducible oppositions, as opposed to, teething problems of two same facing movements, we need the Stand point of the State from where what is allocated overseas is lost domestically. Thus the Foreign and Domestic are in opposition even for a person who shares identities with both of them. There must be some kind of Kantian economic justice synthetic a priori propositions here to be found regarding the fundamental Being of the State and its existence. It would be a very formal expression for the general shape of the State of Emergency without decree or exception, rather its like the irreducible nature of a reflex of survival. Its so close to us our language will not let us articulate it except from paradoxically outside but then it just looks like we just happen to be to one of many equal states. As if being in a State was choice made by an alien being from another world.
The conservative party have messed up this thinking in talking about Welfare changes penalties and sanctions, in much the same way they did after 2010 with Universal Credit. Since this welfare policy is internationally internally related to, if contravariant with, international obligations, this ought to have being made explicit. The left have long ago lost the ability to grasp this irreducible shape of the State, that is why people can go on marches for emergency absolute rights for some international cause, and marches for Welfare for women with children. Of course what is very clearly true at this economic level for one identity is true in general for the rich content of historical culture and the shape of many identities in play.
This international rights and justice project(s) legal determinations can in their theory sublimate the State altogether for international identities and solidarities. Indeed then an appropriate up bringing would be to create a person who is internationally orientated except for their membership or belonging to a particular international identity group or groups. I have herd the old arguments against losing the State to the international organisations and solidarities as creating “tribalisms” in the State. But his would be mere temporary mediation process for the withering away for the State, and the rise of international sub democratic and rationally organised identity solidarities. I mean you could have “British” as an identity, but it would be recognised as local and particular contingent part by the international standpoint. It might even return internationally in the form of people supporting Manchester United from all over the world. But is national identity like that or is that a State Lite or diminishing of the State.
If this isn’t taken seriously your kids will be indoctrinated like this through internationally organised education programs, and the parents will now be mere biological carers of children as bare life, and the left see biological care as the lowest kind of human activity. Merely reproducing biological material fit for the professional educators to start work with. You will have no recourse or reply or criticism and no way out. Imagine the response if any to a problem from a family in a village to this that is addressed to some massive international organisation: the geometric Oak tree from the small acorn of a women’s anti domestic violence group in California in 1973. Imagine how long the investigation, the enquiry, and the court case and new policy would take. They will just put complaints and criticisms into the audit PRIOR TO the funding and pay you off as a matter of policy, before any changes. like a compensation deal or no further charges, to silence you.
1
1
Part 5: One way you might try in order to see why all this institutionally and middle classed backed protesting is not to trace it back to the 1960's and further, but to the 2008 financial crisis. So if you remember the outcry against the middle class that followed it, first the right and conservatives tried to claim it was a black swan anomaly, then due to too much male greed and gambling mind set and structural bias, while the left talked about weak laws and regulations and then the rich bankers and then the super rich 1% of the 1%. All this was done in the context of a State of Emergency styled so called "bank bailout", that means the gains go to the well off while the losses as risk ought to be targeted to those same middle class gainers. But of course this broke the rule of reason that said the middle class deserve the unearned income profit of house prices, because they take the risk of losses and bank ruptcy if it all goes wrong. In this case the losses were "socialised" to everybody by the State through the banks justified not by the less well off gaining the trickle down benefit money, but by the fact that economic collapse would effect the poor more than the middleclass. Metaphysically behaviourally this means carrots for the middleclass and sticks for the rest.
All the dissemination's and distractions by the middle class and all the talk of emergencies and risks only held the line for a year until 2011. Its was only then that the middle class were able to collectively divert the talk of emergency and risk ways form the banker sand middle class and towards racism sexism and black lives matter followed by minorities in general. The post bank crisis enquiry circus called for "whistle blowers" and "speaking truth to power" like the middle class "blow the whistle" on themselves? so this became transferred sublimated to blowing the whistle on sexual assault and racism. And sexual assault ands racism became the new emergency. Its proper revolutionary Hegelian stuff.
So ask your selves a counterfactual, if that is a thing, and ask who would be in the dock now if it wasn't for the marshalling of all this sex and racism, risk emergency 24/7 full media blackout, everyone has forgotten that their houses and over leveraged mortgages were falling prior to 2008 and after the bail out stabilises and then after QE they started to rise, and rose from Covid. It doesn't take a noble prize in economics to realise that the mass immigration has been substantial in keeping house prices high, as well as the supply/demand paradox that houses are not been built.
I guess the next move might be to get us fighting each other over the crumbs of Welfare like form 2010 onwards.
Point 1 I saw a lecture form Harvard way back at the beginning of YouTube and the economist outlined how the middle class mortgage situation was going to destroy the middle class in the West if something isn't done. A few years later the economist at Yale Robert Schiller said this in his 2007 version of his course, and his prediction actually started to happen during his lecture live!
Point 2 Ever since the French Revolution the middle class have known the key to stopping revolution is to make sure the next generation of would be middle class, who in an economic crisis jsut have no expected job to go to, are kept happy or at least occupied less the devil get hold of their hands. Even Lenin held off the early moves for revolution because he said they have not yet built up a middle class vanguard to run the country after they destroy the infra structure. He said it was the difference between a revolt and revolution.
The middle class have done their job well, I spend my days in my home library reading middle class books on logic and semantics, and posting stuff in YouTube Comments sections to New Culture Forum channel and others lucky YouTubers.
I mean I call my library a command centre but I guess Bruce Willis would say it's just a living room mate.
1
1