Maxine Peake: Idiot

What is your favourite smell?
New shoes.

Fair enough. Bit pandering to the female stereotype perhaps and requiring of a system that produces new shoes cheaply and efficiently so we can all have them. But still, fair enough.

What makes you unhappy?
Misogyny and capitalism.

Oh well, fortunately we look to actresses for ability at acting rather than logic or advice on our socio-economic system.

13 thoughts on “Maxine Peake: Idiot”

  1. Surreptitious Evil

    But misogyny is neither a good nor an economically efficient thing?

    But, just think, without capitalism, what would she be being paid? The Beebs argument for paying its talent their talents of silver is that it must compete with the evil capitalists around it.

  2. She might not be contradicting herself. I think she would be quite happy for state collectives of serfs, sorry, comrades to make her new shoes for her.

  3. Philip Scott Thomas

    Never heard of her. OK, let’s see if Wikipedia knows who she is. Ah, yes. Yes, it does:

    ‘It was through her grandfather, a member of the Communist Party that she was first encouraged to develop her creativity and embrace acting. It was also at this time that she began to be interested in politics, first joining the Young Communist League and later becoming a socialist.’

    So no surprise there then.

  4. “Oh well, fortunately we look to actresses for ability at acting…”

    Or, if they lack that, then a massive pair of sweater-puppies!

  5. A perfectly simple, straightforward answer to a simple, straightforward question, and you lot can’t quite take it. Some of us do, in fact, have the wit to recognise that misogyny and capitalism do limit and distort life and humanity. Sorry you’re too up yourselves to notice.

  6. Philip Scott Thomas

    Thank you, dear Edmac41, for enlightening us. We are obviously unequal to your obviously superior morality. I, for one, can only cower in the presence of your wonderfulness.

  7. Surreptitious Evil


    Ah, the Gospel according to St Arnald. I didn’t realise it was the season for his readings.

    Misogyny, yup – got you. See comment #1.

    Capitalism – she might thinks it makes her unhappy but I’ll bet you personal poverty would make her unhappier still.

    Personally, I’m entirely happy about the contribution of capitalism to the reduction of worldwide poverty, despite its noticeable failure to donate to me the riches I’m sure I deserve.

    Pillock! (as a response to your unjustified ad-h.)

  8. Edmac:

    I confess to curiosity. What would YOU suggest as a system to replace capitalism in production and allocation of goods and services?

    If there were another system for which even an argument could be made of its workability, it certainly might be worth considering.

    But, since all non-market sytems have been shown to suffer from an impossibility to perform economic calculation arithmetically. what options exist? This recognition is not new, of course (discovered and explained 1921) but, despite slowness of the various collectivists to “catch on,” seems to have become relatively widely recognized these days even in former communist nations.

    I don’t know much about misogyny. But my own observation is that the more capitalistic the organization of production in a given society, the less sway given such sentiments, they not standing up to the test of competition. If you want to work the misogyny mine, I think there are much better reserves in places where, like India and China, they reduce both absolute and relative numbers and powers of the fair sex via abortion and infanticide–or to the vast expanse of the Islamic portions of the globe, where women are statutorily reduced to something approaching chattel and further marginalized via widespread polygamy. We can find fault, perhaps, with the unsatisfactory lot of women in a capitalist, market-based society but that lot still seems far better (and more easily remediable) than than among alternatives.

  9. “What would YOU suggest as a system to replace capitalism in production and allocation of goods and services?”

    Some sort of state-run shoe factory, with actresses given priority allocation?

  10. I parse this as, “I’m gorgeous and talented, yet I still have to get up in the morning and prance around in a frock in order for people to throw huge gobbets of money at me. It’s not fair! They should recognise my awesomeness and give me the money anyway while I eat chocolate truffles off my Nubian houseboy.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *