Comments on: Why does blogging continue to feel insufficient?

By: Dave Semple

Dave Semple — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 07:10:19 +0000

Blimpish; indeed that is a danger. However, on this blog I and several others like me are never happier than when being explicitly ideological. I don’t apologize for deploying Marxist theory, assumptions, prejudices and so forth. I don’t make a distinction between ideological (therefore brainwashed) and not. What I would say is that there’s no point to political theory and debate unless one person believes that they are right and is prepared to substantiate their opinion. This isn’t the O’Reilly Factor, so such a state doesn’t mean we have to retreat from the word ‘ideological’ like it’s a dirty word.

Regards marriage, I don’t know that society has become more individualistic. And if it has, I don’t know that inequality is what drives it, rather than the other way around. After all, such rising inequality was not possible until the agents of equality had been solidly beaten.

To then relate this back to marriage, we’d have to look at divorce demographics and so on. So yes, I accept the argument is much more complex than was laid out in Laurie’s article. That said, none of this is an argument for the Conservative 3 month waiting line policy. It doesn’t change the fact that some marriages should end, and that the state should have no role in the decision.

Paul. I didn’t notice your recession shindig critique – I’d actually like to read that. I’ll pop over now to BR, but if you’d dig out the link in case I can’t find it, that’s be appreciated.

By: Paulie

Paulie — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:43:14 +0000

I’d not be interested in an ‘unconference’ about theory or to unpick disagreements. They’re useful as a means of either sharing knowledge or promoting collective action. You meet people you are likely to agree with and negotiate the terms and division of labour on some voluntary joint endeavour or other.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:01:00 +0000

I have been unblogging for a few days, but will try to give this idea a considered reply, having already done some considering in relation to the apparent failure of LNM to get off the ground despite initial warmness to it all, my general distrust of all things conference, and my more recent experience of seeking to critique helpfully the ‘their recession’ shindig organised by LRC (which was sadly all too traditionally top-down in approach) and being non-too-politely utterly ignored.

I am when it comes down to it, an organiser, not a blogger or theorist, and the conference format of yore frustrates me no end – so much wasted energy.

By: Blimpish

Blimpish — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:00:30 +0000

Dave: partly, as you say overwillingness to attempt to categorise all utterings (rather than understand them as such), but more something else. A bigger danger to genuine dialogue is that we begin to think that [my argument] is from facts and [your argument] is from ideology, and so I win because not only am I not as brainwashed as you, but also I can see through your brainwashing, so na na na na.

Re “But the idea that marital breakdown is a symptom and not the cause of social breakdown is spot on, and is being ignored.” Isn’t it possible that it’s both symptom and cause, that structure and agency come into play here? Even on a structure-only account, isn’t Laurie’s analysis just simply shallow? i.e. “‘capitalism’ creates inequalities which unless alleviated by redistribution causes stresses and strains which break up marriages”. The change in our material situation and its consequences are not so simple – the increase in inequality can hardly be dissociated from our becoming a more individualistic society (greater meritocracy, declining unionisation, etc.), and equally becoming a more individualistic society (demands for equal opportunity, I-gotta-be-me, etc.) makes established-model marriage a more difficult-to-sustain commitment.

Good luck with the (un)conference on theory. Feel free to invite me if you want some disagreement…

By: Paulie

Paulie — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:02:23 +0000

I think a good start would be to set up a lefty bloggers group on Facebook – invite people like Sunny Hundal, Tim Ireland and Dave Osler (among others) to be co-admins of it.

These things work only if there isn’t any perceived ‘ownership’ of them. Put the idea out there and see where it gets you.

If you set it up, I’ll join and invite others.

By: Paulie

Paulie — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:30:10 +0000

Yep. Probably too late to do now before September.

I’d be happy to see if I could find a venue and push it out, but I’d need some evidence that there is a demand for it first – but in principle, yes.

By: Dave Semple

Dave Semple — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:30:02 +0000

I don’t know why I didn’t think of it before, but Clare Solomon and Jim Jepps organised the Internet for Activists Conference. It was well attended and could easily have been expanded upon (i.e. had more subjects and greater attendance) if there had been a ramp up in promotional work. Slotting this into that seems like a good idea.

Paulie, is it something you’d be up for?

By: Paulie

Paulie — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:27:58 +0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconference

By: Dave Semple

Dave Semple — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:15:31 +0000

What is an ‘unconference’?

By: Paulie

Paulie — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:08:47 +0000

You don’t really need a conference in this day-and-age.

An ‘unconference’ would be just as useful – I just actually doubt if lefty bloggers would come to it.

I’d be happy to organise one using the PICamp list if you like? There’s a site here: http://www.picamp.org – and I could talk to a few people I know that have mailing lists of lefty bloggers.

But I’m really not convinced that there’s much demand for it….