Article

[arghreality]

Ok guys, does this article seem OK to you? I'm sending it to appear in a new little political magaziny/paper thing in sheffield, (which i'm assuming with 99% likelihood of being right is very left-wing) so it doesnt have to be professional quality, but still... it is near the word limit also.

Comments

[renideo]

I don't agree with everything you say, and I don't think you'd expect me to, I do agree with the spirit of what you say and that is much more important. I'm not sure that your conclusion regarding the solution is something that sells itself. Note how capitalism creeps into my reply! But seriously. It's a little like the BBC. It has to be popular, because if a large proportion of the population which are the popular masses cannot be attracted, then it rapidly becomes irrelevant, yet it must service the minorities as well, and the social requirements placed upon it.

In this same way, any such community centre would it seems to me hinge upon some of three factors: A) The education system, and community in which young people are brought up, the development of identity, morality and ego. Formitave experience control. B) The balancing of different, and perhaps irreconcilable views and groups, that each taken alone will isolate the other. C) The people running it, who must not just be passionate, but capable of engendering the passion and idealism requisite to cause people to become involved in such a thing, and produce a true platform for debate and democracy in producing a community.

Perhaps, in my eyes, one of the big answers to your question of why not before, is not so much the lack of government movement, which would be great, but the lack of such people, who are capable of balancing or negating the many societal factors which count against it. Even if those factors might be produced to some degree by it's lack, they also conspire to prevent its successful uptake in mainstream society. You mentioned this as well, and I do think it's a pivotal consideration, because if you can bypass it somewhat, you can bypass related issues, I am not sure the plan should be 'in spite' of people's conceptions, and should find a place for them in some form. I do not know if the government could easily appoint the 'right people' for this job, when it is arguable that they cannot do so for jobs that do not require charisma and possibly genius. This might require a more grassroots approach.

I could be very wrong in this, but you asked for valid criticisms. Mine isn't that you don't address my points specifically, for I do not hold that they are entirely right and you do touch on them as well, but rather that your conclusion may be a little vague and idealistic for it to strike the right note of succinct and pragmatic momentum.

I dunno how valid that view is. I'm just giving it to you because it's the feeling I had when I read it. In general I enjoyed reading the article.

[arghreality]

Actually I would hope that it would smack you personally the wrong way my friend; as it says at the start, and as you point out it needs to be, it is written with the audience in mind - bolshies! Hence the anti-capitalist comments. Which are true nevertheless! But are specifically in there to please the audience, they are not 'necessary'.