The story behind your nickname...

Nicknames? We're allowed to have nicknames on Digsome?

It's my last name and then my first name.

Some people ask this very question as I use it or variants of it elsewhere.

"Whiteheat" is based on the Wilson speech to the Labour party conference in Scarborough in 1963.

addy landzaat wrote: whiteheat wrote: Some people ask this very question as I use it or variants of it elsewhere. "Whiteheat" is based on the Wilson speech to the Labour party conference in Scarborough in 1963. It seems your from Australia, why do you use such a British name? And if it is based on that specific Wilson speech, it is a political statement as well. So, what is the complete story behind your nickname?

Oh, you just had to ask. Well, yes, I am here in Ausland now, but only since 2008. Before that, I was/still am Londoner - I have dual citizenship.

OK, you asked so I apologise for what may seem like a diatribe - my own personal view.

Well, it’s all going back to my sense of irony, social justice/injustice, conflict theory vs structural functionalism and how optimism in politicians allows them see only the positive side of things which when dealing with society and human societies in general, leads them to false positive states, that is, to see life through rose tinted spectacles. The reality of life is somewhat at variance to this view of the world. So what am I talking about?

Ok, back in 1963, Harold Wilson delivered his Labour Party Conference speech at Scarborough. It was a famous speech to all those in the know or are so interested in such things. In that speech, Wilson was making the case of how post war Britain was going to need to change and change fundamentally as a society and in the ways it went about doing almost anything and everything. The reason for this speech was that the advances in science and technology at that time made it apparent that Britain’s social, political and economic modus operandi was going to need to change if Britain was going to meet the demands and challenges of the next 50 to 100 years.

Wilson was saying these advances in science were going to need people educated, trained and adapted to new ways of doing things, which the then current system would not be able to do or cope with. So, he was advocating big societal changes that were going to be necessary for Britain to maintain its place in the future world. This was the essence of the speech. It was known as the ‘White Heat’ speech because of a misquoted phrase from it; 'the white heat of the technological revolution'. What he actually said was:

“…in all our plans for the future, we are re-defining and we are re-stating our Socialism in terms of the scientific revolution. But that revolution cannot become a reality unless we are prepared to make far-reaching changes in economic and social attitudes which permeate our whole system of society. The Britain that is going to be forged in the white heat of this revolution will be no place for restrictive practices or for outdated methods on either side of industry.”

So what do I find interesting, ironic and linked to social justice/social injustice about all this? Well, guess who decided to make some of those very changes to society ‘for the better’ or rather the betterment of society? Why, that would be Mrs Thatcher. So, here we have a Labour leader, a socialist, advocating wholesale and widespread changes because they were going to be needed to cope with scientific and technological advances, when the person who actually really makes those wholesale and widespread changes a reality more than any other leader after Wilson, is Mrs Thatcher, a right wing Conservative. The irony is further reinforced when you consider that Wilson’s view was that all of society should benefit, as befitting the view of a good socialist.

Whereas, Mrs T implemented those changes perhaps on the strength that ‘the country’ would benefit from those changes, when in reality most of the benefit went to the few at the top with ever decreasing benefit trickling down to those lower down, until ultimately, those at the very bottom, that is, most ordinary people not only did not see any benefit but most actually suffered as a result. Do you remember the winter of discontent? Do you remember the asset strippers? Do you remember the numbers of businesses going under the masses of people being thrown out of work? This being most of the 1980’s but the worst of it happened in the first half of the decade.

Was anything done to help those thrown out of work? Were any provisions made to help those thrown out of work or any strategic plan to secure them other work or help them retrain for other jobs? No, there little to nothing for those people – most people. The jobs market has shrunk and continues to shrink to this day. At first, technological advances destroyed 10 jobs for every new job it created. I don’t think it’s as bad as that today, but nonetheless the ratio is still a negative one, so the total amount of jobs available is shrinking. So, more people (population sizes have increased) in to fewer jobs and fewer jobs is a disaster.

So all those who advocate a bright future based on technological advancement saving the world are deluding themselves. Sure, technology is pervading our societies more and more these days and sure, it does benefit many people in many ways. But there are so so many downsides to this way of being. You see, the people that own the technology, in Marx’s words, the people that ‘own the means of production’, grower ever richer and more powerful. Meanwhile, most ordinary people grow poorer, less empowered, less enfranchised and more disillusioned with the system as it stands.

So when I think about that White Heat speech, a wry smile bends my lips and the delicious irony inflames my soul. Technological and scientific advances for the benefit of the many – that's not really happened and there is a strong argument to say that technological advances have been employed as tools to enslave us in varying degrees! 'Benefit' here means real power or control over one's life and having the resources to reach a state of contentment and felicity for the vast majority of people.

Of course in 500 years from now, assuming mankind has not either destroyed itself or the planet, people could be as happy as Larry if technological and scientific advances have lived up to the hype. It could be that all this trouble and issues are but birth or growing pains in mankind’s evolution and that I/we look at things over too short a timescale or that we are too close to the action when these things take time, a very long time to play out and mature. So perhaps things may turn out for the better for everyone in times to come…..but I just don’t believe it……not until we have another system that could viably replace Capitalism, which mostly benefits some people at the expense of others and leads to great social inequalities. Sorry about all that, but you had to ask.




Edited by whiteheat - 16 September 2018 at 15:25

Oh, not really about the labour market. It is a sub theme of social theory, specifically about the role politics and power dynamics in societal change.

I just watched that video you pasted a link to. Yes, excellent. Exactly just one of the points I was talking about. However, although it talks about humans being replaced by bots in all spheres of economic activity, nothing is said about what happens to all those humans. What are they supposed to do? Capitalism may fail because of this - and I don't know if that is a good thing or not. If half or more of your economic base can't earn money to spend in your economy, your economy collapses. Time for a new economy - not based on supplying labour for portable power.

Edited by whiteheat - 17 September 2018 at 01:42

Bear because of my size, been called bear since I was a kid.
Air because of my obsession with anything flying and in the biker world there are a lot of people nicknamed Bear for some reason!

Cactus because I screwed up on the registration to this forum and cactus was part of what I used for the password, oops!

As I do not know how to change it back to the much simpler Bearair looks like I will be the mouthful BearairCactus on this forum for ever

Of course everyone is welcome to call me Roger or Rog which is my name, or as we say in Cornwall, "call me anything you like, just don't call me late for dinner!"

Back in the late 90s when I signed up for my first email address (@yahoo.com, those where the days) I was reading one of Douglas Adams' Dirk Gently novels, there's a band called "Pugilism and the 3rd autistic cuckoo" in one of them. The novel was on my desk I guess and when coming up with an alias that band name came to mind...

I was reading the book in German and didn't realize I've spelled "cuckoo" wrong for ages. I've dropped the "autistic" from the username some time ago, and since it's spelled wrong "cucoo" is available at most places so I've stuck with it