5 comments on “Timmy elsewhere

  1. I do love the word ‘obvious’ as in ‘isn’t it obvious?’ This is followed closely by its little brother ‘can’t you see?’

    I call these Flash Gordon arguments, form the old B movies – “And with a mighty bound he was free”.

    Thus is the need to apply grey matter to a problem nimbly overcome. You don’t need to worry why something feels wrong to you, or develop a framework against which you weigh your view, or even wonder if you’re right or wrong in that feeling, you just go with the feeling. That the feeling might just be social prejudice, given to you by parents, school or TV, doesn’t occur to you. After all: it’s obvious.

    The irony is, Cramsci thought about it long and hard to arrive at his strategy; but didn’t he do well!

  2. Since you slagg him off so much, I bought that book on a whim when I saw it in a shop.

    From memory it was interesting on free trade and protected markets, but spent some time attacking things few people actually say. Like (I think) suggesting that capitalist running dogs like yourself argue that the rich in some way deserve their dosh, whereas I always understood the CRDs position is that it is economically efficient for them to have their dosh.

  3. And Ritchie obliges us with a classic of the genre. Writing about Jersey he tells us that the implied threat is obvious, it’s obvious what he means. Except of course it isn’t.

    It’s all obvious or trivial except…

    Oh; and it’s obvious I can’t spell Gramsci!

  4. I’ve not read this book, so what does he propose as an alternative?

    Some unadulterated state-controlled bollocks we can actually demonstrate will never work in 100 years?

    Or complete silence to that question, perhaps because “capitalism is the worst form of economics, apart from all the others that have been tried from time to time”?

  5. Runcie Balspune – “I-ve not read this book, so what does he propose as an alternative? Some unadulterated state[]controlled bollocks we can actually demonstrate will never work in 100 years?”

    I have not read the book either, although I have ordered it, but perhaps what he is suggesting is some form of military dictatorship a la South Korea until about the day before yesterday?

    Which is fine, in so far as it goes, as long as I am the dictator (first policy – death to Chuggers), or failing that, if he can revive Park Chung-hee, sure, fine.

    But he is more likely to get Somoza. And if he was Nicaraguan rather than Korean he might reflect a little more on that.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>