Interesting article about Travellers by a Traveller

the_syco

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Indeed he would, and he'd be quite right to do so. It would be quite legitimate to perceive travellers as a counter-revolutionary force, in the (absurd) event of some class revolution occurring. But then, so would most of us middle-class people on this thread.

So what's your point?

Lumpenproletariat = "beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers, petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables, persons who have been cast out by industry, and all sorts of declassed, degraded or degenerated elements."

Sounds like travellers alright...!

Roger Hassenforder

the_syco wrote: »

Lumpenproletariat = "beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers, petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables, persons who have been cast out by industry, and all sorts of declassed, degraded or degenerated elements."

Sounds like travellers alright...!

Jasis, it's third degree burns at this stage.
Dude'd want to watch out in case he gets an infection

Valmont

Maybe it's slightly off-topic but I finished watching Love/Hate recently and it was nice to see a sympathetic representation of a traveler character. I've only ever had bad experiences myself but it was a good reminder that there are travelers just trying to make their way in the world too, and who don't resort to violence or criminality.

EDIT: I just remembered the Love/Hate character made pipe bombs for a living...

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

read the article. it simply said such outfits were what islamic extremists hate. not that her outfit was to blame for the attack. and the daily mail are as far from left wing as it gets.
.

Never really read it to know what political position it takes tbh.

Her outfit should not have been relevant to the discussion if the standard of journalism was up to much. There is no call for the murder of innocent civilians even if they have customs that the terrorists dont like. They should have been called for what they are, murdering terrorist scum

Valmont

Valmont wrote: »

Maybe it's slightly off-topic but I finished watching Love/Hate recently and it was nice to see a sympathetic representation of a traveler character. I've only ever had bad experiences myself but it was a good reminder that there are travelers just trying to make their way in the world too, and who don't resort to violence or criminality.

EDIT: I just remembered the Love/Hate character made pipe bombs for a living...

In fairness, Patrick was the most peaceful pipe bomb maker we all knew.

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In fairness, Patrick was the most peaceful pipe bomb maker we all knew.

In fairness, if you wanted to befriend a pipe bomber, you could do a lot worse

tomwaterford

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In fairness, Patrick was the most peaceful pipe bomb maker we all knew.

Until nidgy tried to fück with him

Irish Guitarist

Going back to the issue of the funerals, anyone that thinks just because it's a funeral that travellers will be sitting around weeping and mourning is deluded.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/teddington-sex-assault-boys-at-traveller-funeral-launch-horrific-sex-attack-on-girl-11-a3377756.html

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/travellers-fight-slash-hooks-funeral-2810916

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Never really read it to know what political position it takes tbh.

fair enough. you have made a good choice. it really isn't worth reading.

Deleted User wrote: »

Her outfit should not have been relevant to the discussion if the standard of journalism was up to much. There is no call for the murder of innocent civilians even if they have customs that the terrorists dont like. They should have been called for what they are, murdering terrorist scum

i agree, it's not relevant, i believe it was just simply a bit of stirring by the rag.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Dialectical materialism, like any scientific philosophy, is not concerned with the apportionment of blame, but with a true understanding of the relativity between consciousness and developing matter, from physics to linguistics, to sociology and political economy.

There is a relentless mania on this thread for responding to claims that nobody has made. Nobody said that society is to blame for football hooligans, or that settled people are to blame for anti-social behaviour within the travelling community.

Do you people have any interest in responding to points that are actually being advanced in the thread, or is that too much to ask?

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is bizarre. Each time I point out that this is not the case, another one pops up. I feel like I'm playing whack-a-mole at a particularly joyless little fairground, where everyone is either chawing on a turnip or talking about ethnic minorities like it's still 1950.

Simply blaming settled people isn't adequate here.

Aren't you the guy who said that travellers are 100% responsible for their problems? Nobody here has said that travellers have no responsibility. Nobody has said that the settled community has to accept all the blame. Literally, nobody.

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Jasis, it's third degree burns at this stage.
Dude'd want to watch out in case he gets an infection

Well, this is embarrassing for you.

I know what the lumproletariat is, as shown by the quote that the psycho is referring to, which we wrote last night (see the bottom of this post).

I assume he's excited at having deployed this word, so he wants to do it again.

Speaking of your blunders, got that quote ready for me, where I (or anybody) is claimed to have simply blamed settled people, and absolved travellers of all responsibilty?

I've asked you a few times now, but no joy. Because you simply made it up.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

the_syco wrote: »

Marx would describe modern day travelers as lumpenproletariats.

Indeed he would, and he'd be quite right to do so. It would be quite legitimate to perceive travellers as a counter-revolutionary force, in the (absurd) event of some class revolution occurring. But then, so would most of us middle-class people on this thread.

So what's your point?

Yourself isit

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well, this is embarrassing for you.

I know what the lumproletariat is, as shown by the quote that the psycho is referring to, which we wrote last night (see the bottom of this post).

I assume he's excited at having deployed this word, so he wants to do it again.

Speaking of your blunders, got that quote ready for me, where I (or anybody) is claimed to have simply blamed settled people, and absolved travellers of all responsibilty?

I've asked you a few times now, but no joy. Because you simply made it up.

Actually many (if not most) people here would be proletariat. Middle class is not middle income (or higher) it's the relationship to capital.

You need to brush up on your Marx.

Yourself isit

Yourself isit wrote: »

Actually many (if not most) people here would be proletariat. Middle class is not middle income (or higher) it's the relationship to capital.

You need to brush up on your Marx.

No, I know what I'm talking about, and I repeat: "most of us middle class people" would be deemed counter revolutionary. I didn't say everyone here is middle class.

Many people here, on this website, are middle class, in accordance with orthodox Marxist thought.

Do you own a pension, with shares in financial institutions? In agriculture? Are you a farmer? Do you own or share a property for rental? I fit all of those categories and I'm not even wealthy.

In a wealthy country like Ireland, it is pretty easy to find yourself part of the bourgeoisie, without even having made much effort to do so.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Dialectical materialism, like any scientific philosophy, is not concerned with the apportionment of blame, but with a true understanding of the relativity between consciousness and developing matter, from physics to linguistics, to sociology and political economy.

There is a relentless mania on this thread for responding to claims that nobody has made. Nobody said that society is to blame for football hooligans, or that settled people are to blame for anti-social behaviour within the travelling community.

Do you people have any interest in responding to points that are actually being advanced in the thread, or is that too much to ask?


This is bizarre. Each time I point out that this is not the case, another one pops up. I feel like I'm playing whack-a-mole at a particularly joyless little fairground, where everyone is either chawing on a turnip or talking about ethnic minorities like it's still 1950.

.

Im sure i speak for your opponents on this thread including myself when i say that we feel we are playing whack a mole with your continuous insistence that the travelling community are not 100% blame for their predicament with the most vague non sensical counter arguments

We just cant seem to get our own points across to you.
Chicken before Egg. The travelling community are discriminated against and treated with suspicion because they have burnt many of their bridges with settled society. Rather then accepting that radical change is needed they go on the defensive and therefore this meaningless cycle will continue

Blaming anybody but the travelling community for the depths their behaviour has fallen too is just so socially irresponsible on so many levels and nothing will be achieved by it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Im sure i speak for your opponents on this thread including myself when i say that we feel we are playing whack a mole with your continuous insistence that the travelling community are not 100% blame for their predicament with the most vague non sensical counter arguments

We just cant seem to get our own points across to you.
Chicken before Egg. The travelling community are discriminated against and treated with suspicion because they have burnt all of their bridges.

Blaming anybody but the travelling community for the depths their behaviour has fallen too is just so socially irresponsible on so many levels and nothing will be achieved by it.

Actually no, there's (obviously) nothing wrong with having an opinion that contradicts mine. That's not the problem.

Read what I was describing as the whack-a-mole issue: the unremitting claim that I or anybody else on this thread has simply blamed the settled community, and or that I, and others, have abrogated travellers from their own responsibilities.

That is 100% invention. And it keeps cropping up, each time it is pointed-out.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Actually no, there's (obviously) nothing wrong with having an opinion that contradicts mine. That's not the problem.

Read what I was describing as the whack-a-mole issue: the unremitting claim that I or anybody else on this thread has simply blamed the settled community, and or that I, and others, have abrogated travellers from their own responsibilities.

That is 100% invention. And it keeps cropping up, each time it is pointed-out.

But the basis of your whole argument has been that the travellers are not 100% responsible for the discrimination they face today is it not? We realise you are not saying the settled community are the whole blame but to be honest i dont think they can be really blamed at all if a group of people choose to condemn themselves to this lifestyle for all eternity.

I mean you can choose not to live this lifestyle if you put your mind to it. Its not like sexuality or hair colour, things you cant change. I dont blame any member of the settled community for being reluctant to engage or sponsor this culture to be honest. The Travelling community is a failed little society really. Sure they have some heritage like the Cant language but this is no reason why they cant normalise to a certain degree and avail of the opportunities that society isnt stopping them from obtaining.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

But the basis of your whole argument has been that the travellers are not 100% responsible for the discrimination they face today is it not?

Well, that's not the basis of my argument, but that's one of the things I am saying yet.

Or to be more accurate, it is ridiculous to heap 100% of the blame on one side in any such dynamic social relationship. I can't say how much blame is deserved by travellers, but whether it's 90% or 85% or 50%, it clearly is not 100%, because that would have them be responsible for every poor decision they made, even at some times without malicious intention, such as protecting their children from bullying that have driven too many of them to suicide.

I suspect a lot of us are actually fairly moderate-minded on this issue, my greatest problem is with the "100% anything" crew, and I am certainly not among their number.

markodaly

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Oh, rubbish. Marxism is no more a 19th century philosophy than Liberalism is a 17th century philosophy. I know when these philosophies were first disseminated, but they are contemporary philosophies, which have evolved and continue to do so.

Apart from the philosophy itself being named after a certain person called Karl Marx, who published his ideas (along with Engels) in publications called, Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto, not a 19th century philosophy at all.

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

Apart from the philosophy itself being named after a certain person called Karl Marx, who published his ideas (along with Engels) in publications called, Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto, not a 19th century philosophy at all.

Mark, I don't know why you're pushing this point to such a strained interpretation, but Marxism simply is not a 19th century philosophy.

Truth be told, most of the the fundamentals of Marx's theories existed long before Marx himself.

It is no more 19th century than liberalism is a philosophy of the 18th century ... and the likes of Permabear would likely reject a claim that his philosophy belongs in the 18th century.

If Marx were alive today he wouldn't recognise Marxism, even orthodox Marxism, as his own work. Marxism is not simply the ideas of Marx. It has evolved quite profoundly. Maybe you should delve into the work of Georg Lukacs, or even Stalin, to see how Marxism has evolved (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse -- we are democratic like that)

Yourself isit

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, I know what I'm talking about, and I repeat: "most of us middle class people" would be deemed counter revolutionary. I didn't say everyone here is middle class.

Many people here, on this website, are middle class, in accordance with orthodox Marxist thought.

Do you own a pension, with shares in financial institutions? In agriculture? Are you a farmer? Do you own or share a property for rental? I fit all of those categories and I'm not even wealthy.

Marx didn't really deal with private sector pensions in the 19C. Farmers are petit bourgois at most - they work and own capital. That's never been in dispute. A landlord is a landlord but unless it's your primary income it hardly changes your class significantly.

Also (and not mentioned) plumbers, electricians, white van man etc would be petit bourgois.

In a wealthy country like Ireland, it is pretty easy to find yourself part of the bourgeoisie, without even having made much effort to do so.

Nonsense. Most of us trade our labour for the vast majority of our income. We are, in the private sector, employed by capitalists. That's primarily how we make money. We can be fired or sacked. Capital can reduce our salary or export our jobs.

Of course Marx being wrong about the immiseration of us proles means that it's slightly more complicated than he expected but that's the fault of his pseudo science. Nevertheless he is clear (and for once accurate) on classes - it is the relationship to the means of production not income.

tomofson

This thread is getting ridiculous now.

Yourself isit

tomofson wrote: »

This thread is getting ridiculous now.

Not at all, it's a philosophical discussion. Maybe we could take it to politics so you all can rant about travellers unmolested. I might start a thread there or in political theory.

Yourself isit

Yourself isit wrote: »

Marx didn't really deal with private sector pensions in the 19C.

I am perplexed by the repeated references to the 19th century. I will say it again, Marx wouldn't recognize contemporary Marxism, in its various strains, and the fact that contemporary pension plans didn't exist in the 19th century is almost ludicrously irrelevant.

I'm all for a discussion of Marxism but in this thread, it's losing relevance to the important topic at hand.

I've explained why I favour dialectical materialism in analysing the problems within the travelling community, if anyone else wants to advance an alternative philosophical approach, let's be hearing it?

Yourself isit

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I am perplexed by the repeated references to the 19th century. I will say it again, Marx wouldn't recognize contemporary Marxism, in its various strains, and the fact that contemporary pension plans didn't exist in the 19th century is almost ludicrously irrelevant.

You brought up pensions. Apparantly pensions make modern workers capitalists. I bring up the century that Marx lived on because his philosophy was based on the status of workers in that century. If it's out of date then let's abandon it.

I'm all for a discussion of Marxism but in this thread, it's losing relevance to the important topic at hand.

I've explained why I favour dialectical materialism in analysing the problems within the travelling community, if anyone else wants to advance an alternative philosophical approach, let's be hearing it?

You've said you favour dialectical materialism but you haven't explained what it is.

The materialism part just means grounded in the real world. Marx wanted to apply this dialectic methodology to history without divine, metaphysical or non material intervention.


Dialectic to Marx refers to the class conflict between what he thought woukd be the last two major classes on earth - the proletariat and capitalist classes - which would synthesise to communism.


The capitalists would come to dominate society (he was writing when aristocrats dominated) and in their success would produce in opposition a proletariat that worked but didn't own the means of production. This proletarians would be the vast majority as all other worker classes become proletariat.

The revolution would therefore be a case of the workers - through unions or even democracy - seizing capital. It didn't even have to be bloody. Other poor people -say the homeless wouldn't be part of this. It wasn't enough to be poor ( in fact it isn't necessary to be poor) - the proletariat had to be in a position to seize not just power but the means of production. That means factory workers taking over factories not the homeless taking over factories.

Travellers are by your own admition lumpen proles. What exactly do you mean by applying dialectical materialism to them? What does that even mean?

BigEejit

I wonder why the child in the OP was invited? It was small minded and bigoted to send her away, even if the family she was part of were infamous in their area.

I knew several settled travellers in Galway when i lived there 20+ years ago, a mixed bag of hard workers and "steal the sugar from your tea" types. A good friend, Paddy, who was not a traveller himself but knew loads of them from growing up in Tuam introduced me to some travellers on nights out there. A good lot of them Paddy would say after they were out of earshot, "watch out for that lad, he'll put you in hospital for a laugh". He was 100% serious.

There was a factory in Galway that made flags that employed mostly settled travellers, I often ate lunch alongside them in the cafe and they were mostly sound, however there was a halting site up the road and we needed eyes in the back of our heads, kids and sometimes adults on the prowl constantly looking for things to disappear. Anyway one time we were having a chat in that cafe and one of my workmates asked one of the guys from the flag factory how many from the halting site were working there and he was told that the families in the halting site never had and never would have gainful employment. I never could understand why some (all?) travellers were allowed to just opt out of employment.

And why in the fcuk are people who have never spent their lives moving from place to place referred to as settled, surely settled is travellers who have ceased their itinerant ways.

freshpopcorn

BigEejit wrote: »

And why in the fcuk are people who have never spent their lives moving from place to place referred to as settled, surely settled is travellers who have ceased their itinerant ways.

I think it's common for travellers to do a bit of it when they get married.
It's a bit like somebody saying the play the piano but they haven't done it since their Junior Cert.

Roger Hassenforder

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well, this is embarrassing for you.

I know what the lumproletariat is, as shown by the quote that the psycho is referring to, which we wrote last night (see the bottom of this post).

I assume he's excited at having deployed this word, so he wants to do it again.

Speaking of your blunders, got that quote ready for me, where I (or anybody) is claimed to have simply blamed settled people, and absolved travellers of all responsibilty?

I've asked you a few times now, but no joy. Because you simply made it up.

In fairness Militades, you're a bit of craic with your philosophical bullsh1t rhetoric, getting your ass handed to you, but continue digging none the less. First year Soc+Pol stuff.
A pantomime intellectual, resplendent in your fedora, thesaurus at hand.

IIRC, I was waiting, (but am no more), on a response from you, so when you finally dismount from your pedestal of philosophical self righteousness and wipe the eggs from your face, you might demonstrate how you propose to use your dialectic materialism to resolve the cycle of traveller -settled people distrust, violence and criminality.

Or else take your failed Marxist nonsense elsewhere, thread derailed already, enough pandering.

Yourself isit

Yourself isit wrote: »

You've said you favour dialectical materialism but you haven't explained what it is.

Yes, I have. I'm not typing it all out again, so do a thread-search.

Travellers are by your own admition lumpen proles. What exactly do you mean by applying dialectical materialism to them? What does that even mean?

First of all, it isn't an 'admition] [sic]. It is quite obvious to anyone that travellers tend to fit neatly into this category.

I stated earlier that orthodox Marxism has evolved enormously since the 19th century, and the question of the lumpenproletariat (in this case, travellers) has also evolved. I personally prefer the view of Trotsky, who called the lumpenproletariat "the countless human beings whom finance capital itself has brought to desperation and frenzy". This is in stark contrasts to Marx, who was far more rambunctious in his criticisms of the lumpen people; I think he may even have described them as 'scum' in the Manifesto, or some other of his writings.

Troskty's description of those whom join the travellers in this 'underclass' is instructive: since these travellers are demoralized by the political economy that has been created in the interests of finance capital, we can invoke from our study of dialectical materialism that travellers' tendency towards withdrawal and inertia would be transformed after capitalism has fallen.

I also think that Marx exaggerated the claim that the likes of travellers would be uninterested in revolution for another reason: he lived too long before the likes of the Black Panthers, whose membership seems to have been largely comprised of an 'underclass' of black men (and they were, controversially, mostly men). Marx's writings on lumpenproletariat also fail to have predicted the likes of the OP, a member of this 'underclass' who has done fantastically well for herself; or even Martin Collins, a traveller and a barrister.

It also deserves to be pointed out that Marx was probably politically motivated in his suspicion towards the lumpenproletariat, because of the political landscape of the era in continental Europe, when he feared the lumpen people as a tool of Capital.

BigEejit wrote: »

And why in the fcuk are people who have never spent their lives moving from place to place referred to as settled, surely settled is travellers who have ceased their itinerant ways.

Being a traveller has no more to do with nomadic lifestyle than being an 'Austrian' economist means you have to be from, or live in, Austria!

The term may have originated in this way, but has evolved to refer to an ethnnicity, a bit like 'Native Americans', which isn't to be taken literally as encompassing all people born in America.

The Bishop Basher

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

In fairness Militades, you're a bit of craic with your philosophical bullsh1t rhetoric, getting your ass handed to you, but continue digging none the less. First year Soc+Pol stuff.
A pantomime intellectual, resplendent in your fedora, thesaurus at hand.

Masterclass in how to murder a thread when you realise you've been talking nonsense, by talking even more nonsense..

pilly

I won't quote Pete's whole post cause it's too long but I disagree totally. I don't think Isabelle was mean at all.

There's is nothing worse than someone going on about an ex constantly. Especially when the only explanation for them breaking up is "I couldn't give her what she wanted". This is usually code for commitment and loyalty and if he can't give that to someone who's the best person in the world according to him he needs to shut up and get over himself.

Chanelle was rightly having a go at Ellie because it was 3 against 1. So would I, even if the 1 was in the wrong. It's the worst kind of bullying.