# Privileged people calling less privileged people "stupid" doesn't seem to be working...



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

Does it?

How many more "shock results" are we going to need to get this?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 9, 2016)

I assume this is the one that will get things moving


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> Does it?
> 
> How many more "shock results" are we going to need to get this?


There was a brilliant one the guardian feed a bit ago 


> A drunken student who refused to give his name started ranting about the south and the “rest of America”.
> 
> “The rest of America can fuck itself. I hope they lose all their jobs and get addicted to meth,” he said.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 9, 2016)

Whilst this may be so, there does seem to be a lot of stupid.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 9, 2016)

Don't forget how the those of us who didn't like either candidate but preferred Hilary over sexual predator Trump will be criticised as liberals and therefore; stupid.

Anyway; the people have spoken. We must respect the result. All hail the rise of the right.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 9, 2016)

You can judge how stupid or not they were when they wave their children off to war or die in a 'race' riot.

The result continues to tell us the old order doesn't deliver and the forces of the right can lie as to why that is so. It's the Muslims!


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> You can judge how stupid or not they were when they wave their children off to war or die in a 'race' riot.



Cause of course that wouldn't happen under Clinton just as it didn't under Obama? Right?


----------



## Poi E (Nov 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> All hail the rise of the right.



Liberal nonce. The will of the people has triumphed!


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 9, 2016)

And yet it'll be the least privileged under the boot, as it ever was.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 9, 2016)

But at least it'll be local people polishing the jack boot.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> Cause of course that wouldn't happen under Clinton just as it didn't under Obama? Right?



Less or more?

I'm pleased you have the consolation of slagging off liberals and soft lefties. 

Those bigoted feminists and Hispanic people who think it is stupid to vote in a racist and misogynist. What are they like?


----------



## StoneRoad (Nov 9, 2016)

What you have to remember is that the distribution of intelligence level in a population, statistically, follows the "normal  distribution" curve. Thus the median has (approximately) as many above as below that point. In this case, "average intelligence" ... so, at least statistically, there are as many "stupid" as there are "bright" people.
So the "stupid" tail of the distribution is a relatively small number, but is disproportionally visible to those on the other areas of the spectrum. And most people actually over-estimate the "average" intelligence level, and where they sit on that spectrum - thus, sometimes and unconsciously, stigmatising what they perceive as "lower" levels.


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Those bigoted feminists and Hispanic people who think it is stupid to vote in a racist and misogynist. What are they like?



Losing.

Again and again.

I want "The Left" to win.

Do you?


----------



## billy_bob (Nov 9, 2016)

It would be nice to see 'the liberal left' (whatever that means - probably traditional centre--centre right) in America learn from recent events in the UK about how not to react to a shock result that it has clearly brought on itself over the last couple of generations.

But it won't, will it? Just a lot of sneering at how the thick, racist drones will regret it when they're conscripted to fight in the next war and that kind of thing. Which is distasteful in its own right, and completely counterproductive because it's handing the other team the popular perception of the high ground. There'll be legal actions, shenanigans in Congress etc. comparable to what's gone on here since Brexit. And a little way down the line it will be easy for Trump's administration to portray it all as destructive sour grapes and, in fact, the reason the economy and global relations are fucked since he got in.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2016)

Half the fucking Democratic campaign was just rich white people and a handful of rich ethnic minorities saying 'fucking white ppl smdh' over and over on twitter. People who are too inept to see that that was not a winning strategy will never learn from their mistakes.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 9, 2016)

Brexit provided a nice mechanism for a bunch of people of various flavours of politics to give another a bunch of people, loosely describable as liberals, a kicking, because the outcome was the masses rejecting their patronising conservatism in favour of revolt. You might argue that revolt was, say, racist, but there are some sound reasons why Brexit might be a good idea, so it's not a given.

The trouble with trying to reuse this theme with Trump is he explicitly is a racist. And all the rest. So this time if you laud it as a revolt against the elites, any kind of victory, you have to explicitly legitimise some kind of racism, and all the rest. And to boot, if you want to argue that it wasn't stupid, you need to show some way in which a Trump presidency isn't a universally terrible idea.

The only way out of the contortion that I can see is to patronise these people and say, well, it's not their fault they're racist, they were fed this stuff and it was the only option they had. Which brings us back to elites calling people stupid, only this time benevolently.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 9, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Less or more?
> 
> I'm pleased you have the consolation of slagging off liberals and soft lefties.
> 
> Those bigoted feminists and Hispanic people who think it is stupid to vote in a racist and misogynist. What are they like?


The thing is, the people that you mention, lefties, feminists, etc, _are_ seeing their politics firmly rejected by electorates. The two biggest western political events this century have been won largely on anti-immigration/anti-lefty platforms. Left wing politicos will pretend that that wasn't the reason the UK voted to leave the union, but they've been wrong about everything else too.

There's no doubt what the yanks have just voted for.

Now would be a good time to stick £500 on Marine Le Pen for French president next year.

Times they are a changing. Massively.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2016)

Poi E said:


> But at least it'll be local people polishing the jack boot.


Not for long, it will be offshored to china


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> Losing.
> 
> Again and again.
> 
> ...



Yep, but this endless slagging off of moderate progressives is a road to nowhere. They are not stupid or nasty per se any more than those who chose Brexit.  Why should they not find xenophobia appalling?

Need a bit less hate all round.


----------



## Athos (Nov 9, 2016)

Who is lauding it, or describing it as a victory?  People are explaining that it's a rejection of liberal elites, not arguing that Trump and/or (at least some of) his supporters are explicitly racist .


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2016)

mauvais said:


> And all the rest. So this time if you laud it as a revolt against the elites, any kind of victory, you have to explicitly legitimise some kind of racism, and all the rest.


Who's lauding it? The OP isn't cheering this result it's pointing out that the strategy that centre-left parties have pursued over the few decades is only leading to losses.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> Losing.
> 
> Again and again.
> 
> ...


Did they win last night?


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 9, 2016)

Anyone who wants to get elected seriously needs to ditch any luvvie support that's for sure. Even Bruce couldn't swing it.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

Just before everyone makes their mind up that this is all about less priviledged people voting Trump out of despair,  exit polls suggest otherwise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Anyone who wants to get elected seriously needs to ditch any luvvie support that's for sure. Even Bruce couldn't swing it.


Brucie? auld brucie forsyth?


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 9, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Did they win last night?


Were you dropped on your head as a child?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 9, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Who's lauding it? The OP isn't cheering this result it's pointing out that the strategy that centre-left parties have pursued over the few decades is only leading to losses.


F**k knows what strategy the far left has pursued then.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Brucie? auld brucie forsyth?


He's in a bad way at the moment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> Just before everyone makes their mind up that this is all about less priviledged people voting Trump out of despair,  exit polls suggest otherwise.
> View attachment 95229


Where's the question about despair there? what do you mean by despair?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 9, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> F**k knows what strategy the far left has pursued then.


Quite.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Where's the question about despair there? what do you mean by despair?


immiseration.
the exit poll says that the lowest income people voted Clinton, I think that is worth a moments pause before the narrative gets fixed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> immiseration.


other forms of despair are available


----------



## rubbershoes (Nov 9, 2016)

Is "privileged" a code word for educated?


----------



## billy_bob (Nov 9, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Brexit provided a nice mechanism for a bunch of people of various flavours of politics to give another a bunch of people, loosely describable as liberals, a kicking, because the outcome was the masses rejecting their patronising conservatism in favour of revolt. You might argue that revolt was, say, racist, but there are some sound reasons why Brexit might be a good idea, so it's not a given.
> 
> The trouble with trying to reuse this theme with Trump is he explicitly is a racist. And all the rest. So this time if you laud it as a revolt against the elites, any kind of victory, you have to explicitly legitimise some kind of racism, and all the rest. And to boot, if you want to argue that it wasn't stupid, you need to show some way in which a Trump presidency isn't a universally terrible idea.
> 
> The only way out of the contortion that I can see is to patronise these people and say, well, it's not their fault they're racist, they were fed this stuff and it was the only option they had. Which brings us back to elites calling people stupid, only this time benevolently.



I think the racism (which yes, is undeniably far more explicit and hard to dismiss in the Trump trajectory than in Brexit) is largely a key theme because it's such an excellent short cut to that revolt against 'liberals'. That's not the same as saying 'it's not their fault they're racist', though I don't think it's patronising to say that _any_ group of people, elites included, can be induced to racism quite readily in the 'right' circumstances. It's so much easier than explaining what neoliberalism's really done with your job prospects to instead simply identify the person they've given your job to, and let human nature take its course.

I think both Leave and the Trump campaign could still have been successful without a hint of racism about them, because the anger at the way things are isn't _really _about race. (If that's equivalent to saying 'they can't help being racist', so be it). But race has proven a great vehicle for this kind of anger so many times before, so it's pretty hard to resist.


----------



## Gromit (Nov 9, 2016)

"Privileged people calling less privileged people "stupid" doesn't seem to be working..."

It's working a treat for the privileged. 

The stupid people are voting in the people who are going to make the privileged even more privileged and the less privileged even less privileged. 

The stupid are earning their label.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> other forms of despair are available



On form today.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Who is lauding it, or describing it as a victory?  People are explaining that it's a rejection of liberal elites, not arguing that Trump and/or (at least some of) his supporters are explicitly racist .





redsquirrel said:


> Who's lauding it? The OP isn't cheering this result it's pointing out that the strategy that centre-left parties have pursued over the few decades is only leading to losses.


I didn't intend to suggest that the OP himself is celebrating the outcome. However I do think more broadly that it will be used as a positive by many - it's the loop we've been around with Brexit, albeit in different circumstances as described.

Obviously the strategy isn't working. But what's the answer? Because from here it looks like the natural route from this kind of argument is less opposing elitism and more trying to appease or tolerate stupidity and racism. It's deeply uncomfortable whichever way you tackle it.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 9, 2016)

"Isn't democracy terrible that it allows all these people to vote?"


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> Just before everyone makes their mind up that this is all about less priviledged people voting Trump out of despair,  exit polls suggest otherwise.
> View attachment 95229



Thanks for this. Can you provide the link to the source please?


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 9, 2016)

Privileged people unconvincingly redefining themselves as less privileged than less privileged people definitely doesn't work either.


----------



## billy_bob (Nov 9, 2016)

kenny g said:


> "Isn't democracy terrible that it allows all these people to vote?"



"We give you the right to vote, and this is how you repay us? By voting for someone other than us? You scum!"


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> Just before everyone makes their mind up that this is all about less priviledged people voting Trump out of despair,  exit polls suggest otherwise.


You mean the exit polls that predicted the wrong result? But even if those figures are accurate, without previous years data to compare against they don't tell us how if there has been movement. Clinton may win among those with <$50,000 but win with a much lower % than previous democrats. Trump doesn't have to win a majority of  poorer voters for there to have been enough movement among such voters to give him a win.

The fact that Clinton could not win democratic strongholds like Michigan and Wisconsin suggests that there's been movement to Trump among traditional democrat working class voters in these states (though without having a further breakdown and knowledge of the turnout it's hard to be sure exactly what happened).


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Thanks for this. Can you provide the link to the source please?


2016 election results: National Exit polls

(quite a few interesting graphs in there but as people above have said, none of the samples is huge and information on turnout will help a lot when it comes.)


----------



## pogofish (Nov 9, 2016)

I'm puzzled at why this is in *UK Politics*


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Brexit provided a nice mechanism for a bunch of people of various flavours of politics to give another a bunch of people, loosely describable as liberals, a kicking, because the outcome was the masses rejecting their patronising conservatism in favour of revolt. You might argue that revolt was, say, racist, but there are some sound reasons why Brexit might be a good idea, so it's not a given.
> 
> The trouble with trying to reuse this theme with Trump is he explicitly is a racist. And all the rest. So this time if you laud it as a revolt against the elites, any kind of victory, you have to explicitly legitimise some kind of racism, and all the rest. And to boot, if you want to argue that it wasn't stupid, you need to show some way in which a Trump presidency isn't a universally terrible idea.
> 
> The only way out of the contortion that I can see is to patronise these people and say, well, it's not their fault they're racist, they were fed this stuff and it was the only option they had. Which brings us back to elites calling people stupid, only this time benevolently.



Who is lauding it as a victory?

Its a defeat.

But its not the defeat for Clinton we should be worried about.

Its the defeat (or failure) of "the left" to provide the vehicle for an utterly predictable revolt that we should be concerned about.


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Did they win last night?



No.

Why not?


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

pogofish said:


> I'm puzzled at why this is in *UK Politics*



"cause I want to talk about how we might apply any lessons learnt to what we do.


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> immiseration.
> the exit poll says that the lowest income people voted Clinton, I think that is worth a moments pause before the narrative gets fixed.



If so, it might also be worth thinking about why those perhaps not on the lowest income might feel so hard done by.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Obviously the strategy isn't working. But what's the answer? Because from here it looks like the natural route from this kind of argument is less opposing elitism and more trying to appease or tolerate stupidity and racism. It's deeply uncomfortable whichever way you tackle it.


I see it as perfectly possible to not tolerate racism while at the same time not writing off millions and millions of people as thick/racists. I mean last night we had a someone on here calling (not for the first time) anyone who was critical of Clinton apologists for racism, you don't think that attitude might not be part of the reason why people didn't vote for Clinton?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> On form today.


never better


----------



## Idaho (Nov 9, 2016)

Anti establishment left leaning politicians won't have any money backing or political party support and will be attacked in the media. Right wing mavericks can dress up in anti establishment colours , can garner media and corporate support . Our candidates will be pre-selected by the media and corporate interests.


----------



## Sea Star (Nov 9, 2016)

In what way is Trump, and the white straight cis guys who voted for him, less privileged?

Actually I get called stupid and a lot worse on a daily basis by people who support Trump.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> If so, it might also be worth thinking about why those perhaps not on the lowest income might feel so hard done by.


I hope that time will also be found to think about reasons why an overtly racist mysogenistic campaign won it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> Who is lauding it as a victory?
> 
> Its a defeat.
> 
> ...



Agreed. But you won't attract many people who went for Brexit or Trump by endlessly trashing the soft left. Many people already hate the left as it is. Need to give them a reason why progressive politics is for them. Means we can't have snobbery, but we still can't tolerate racism or misogyny. 

We are in a bind. Some people seem to like Brexit/Trump threatening the status quo. Probably because it's a fake threat deep down. They don't like Corbyn doing so to the same degree.


----------



## Sea Star (Nov 9, 2016)

Also - the areas in the UK that have gone the  furthest right in elections all seem to be pretty affluent as far as I can see.


----------



## LDC (Nov 9, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> In what way is Trump, and the white straight cis *poor working class *guys who voted for him, less privileged?



Hmmm, I have no idea...


----------



## Sea Star (Nov 9, 2016)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Hmmm, I have no idea...


I'm responding to the title and it wasn't at you


----------



## Sea Star (Nov 9, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> Is "privileged" a code word for educated?


No. Unless you think women, people of colour and LGBT people don't get educated


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> I hope that time will also be found to think about reasons why an overtly racist mysogenistic campaign won it.



Yes.

Would very much be worth seeing why.

...and then learning from that.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 9, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Also - the areas in the UK that have gone the  furthest right in elections all seem to be pretty affluent as far as I can see.


This is wrong, but just so we can be clear, you 're saying that there is or there isn't a connection between material conditions and politics?


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Means we can't have snobbery, but we still can't tolerate racism or misogyny.


Yes. Well meaning people being ready to excuse the most blatent expressions of this as inevitable byproducts of neo-liberalism / globalisation is not going to help.


AuntiStella said:


> Also - the areas in the UK that have gone the  furthest right in elections all seem to be pretty affluent as far as I can see.


An estimated 70% of _Tory party Members_ voted to Leave the EU. I have been struggling to figure out how this fits the narrative.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> Does it?
> 
> How many more "shock results" are we going to need to get this?




Significant sample size.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 9, 2016)

Tory party members are not an area and 70% of  140 000 on a 70% turnout is sweet FA - not a significant social trend. As for voting leave being an indicator of far right politics...well, nothing ever seems to be learnt does it?


----------



## inva (Nov 9, 2016)

seems a very dangerous situation where anti racism/anti sexism etc get tied to the neoliberal right, while anti neoliberalism gets tied to the conservative right


----------



## rubbershoes (Nov 9, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> No. Unless you think women, people of colour and LGBT people don't get educated




You think they're Trump's core supporters?


----------



## inva (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> An estimated 70% of _Tory party Members_ voted to Leave the EU. I have been struggling to figure out how this fits the narrative.


I have no idea what narrative suggested a majority of tory member didn't support leave? I never heard one that's for sure


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Tory party members are not an area and 70% of  140 000 on a 70% turnout is sweet FA - not a significant social trend. As for voting leave being an indicator of far right politics...well, nothing ever seems to be learnt does it?


I didn't suggest anything about leave = far right politics. Just that Tory Party members overwhelmingly voting leave doesn't fit the portrait of leave voters being people calling out for change.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 9, 2016)

inva said:


> seems a very dangerous situation where anti racism/anti sexism etc get tied to the neoliberal right, while anti neoliberalism gets tied to the conservative right


Progressive neo-liberalism is eating the left alive through lesser evilism right now. Just like we said a socially liberal politics not tied to significant economic redistribution (from either above or below - obv the latter better and would of necessity be tied to a social movement based on solidarity and collective perspectives). No way out on the political level without making a break.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> I didn't suggest anything about leave = far right politics. Just that Tory Party members overwhelmingly voting leave doesn't fit the portrait of leave voters being people calling out for change.


In reply to stella saying (incorectly) that the areas that have gone furthest right have been the most affluent you post that 70% of troy party members voted leave - and you didn't mean to suggest that voting leave was far right?


----------



## LDC (Nov 9, 2016)

There's as much a cultural break in direction/outlook needed in the left, that while not of course unconnected to the political perspective, is IMO one that might be harder to deal with.

We need to move from an introspective, sub-cultural, low ambition, activist focused scene to a class based, massively ambitious, problem solving, organized movement.

Answers as to how to do this on a postcard please...


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> In reply to stella saying (incorectly) that the areas that have gone furthest right have been the most affluent you post that 70% of troy party members voted leave - and you didn't mean to suggest that voting leave was far right?


I meant to suggest that simple explanations based on underpriviledged people voting for change / anti-establishment may not be fit for purpose.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2016)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> There's as much a cultural break in direction/outlook needed in the left, that while not of course unconnected to the political perspective, is IMO one that might be harder to deal with.
> 
> We need to move from an introspective, sub-cultural, low ambition, activist focused scene to a class based, massively ambitious, problem solving, organized movement.



Have you heard of a man called Trotsky?

Ducks, gets coat, leaves.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Progressive neo-liberalism is eating the left alive through lesser evilism right now. Just like we said a socially liberal politics not tied to significant economic redistribution (from either above or below - obv the latter better and would of necessity be tied to a social movement based on solidarity and collective perspectives). No way out on the political level without making a break.



Agreed, but how to do it without getting skewered on economic 'irresponsibility'?


----------



## LDC (Nov 9, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have you heard of a man called Trotsky?
> 
> Ducks, gets coat, leaves.



Given that most of my 'anarchist' friends seem to have joined the Labour Party recently, maybe that wouldn't be such a surprise move.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 9, 2016)

I know several people who voted for Trump. Or rather voted mainly against another Clinton Presidency. They really hated Bill's terms; I recall one of them telling me the sight of Bill made him nauseous. They'd soured on the Bush dynasty by the end of four more years. They saw the anti-Bush Obama as the affront liberals intended him to be. They could not believe it when he got a second term. I noticed their circles trending from Birther to 9-11 Truther. Now they've elected an anti-Obama convinced that even Trump with his evident limitations would be better than Hillary. Fundamentally they don't really believe anything good can come out of DC so why not? These are not red necks; all smart college educated country club types. And yes that's a whole lot of stupid but it all just got steadily twisted out of shape. 

The "low information" voters trotting along behind the gaudy Trump circus to make up the numbers are often just suckers. They won't get an even break off The Donald either. That is not the way he rolls.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 9, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Agreed, but how to do it without getting skewered on economic 'irresponsibility'?


Don't have the conversation via the traditional media.


----------



## sihhi (Nov 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 95230
> 
> Significant sample size.



The turnout on the bottom level for Clinton would be much lower than the turnout at a step above.

It seems clear that old dying heartland industrial USA went nationalist-protectionist Perot in 1992, Trump in 2016.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> Who is lauding it as a victory?
> 
> Its a defeat.
> 
> ...


Not sure which 'left' you can blame for that. The only remotely left dem candidate was Sanders. Not getting him on the ticket is what has led to this. The situation could have tipped the other way. It was the 'right' ie clinton et al who fucked it.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

sihhi said:


> The turnout on the bottom level for Clinton would be much lower than the turnout at a step above.
> 
> It seems clear that old dying heartland industrial USA went nationalist-protectionist Perot in 1992, Trump in 2016.



Have you seen that sort of data?


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Need to give them a reason why progressive politics is for them.


But is it? 'Progressives' lined up behind Clinton, someone who promised more the same, rather than Sanders, someone who ran on a platform of attacking trade deals/banks etc.

Progressive politics is currently lining up behind a vote LibDem campaign in Richmond, the same party that less than two years ago was part of the coalition that but hundreds of thousands into poverty.


----------



## sihhi (Nov 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Have you seen that sort of data?



Nearly all research on western democracies with mainstream candidates sees participation decreasing as income decreases.

I have seen it over the years too.


----------



## tommers (Nov 9, 2016)

Election 2016: Exit Polls

Here are lots of stats for you all to chew over.  Some of them seem a bit redundant but there you go


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Don't have the conversation via the traditional media.


Indeed, seemed to work for Trump and Vote Leave.


----------



## sihhi (Nov 9, 2016)

The far and away biggest swing on that exit poll of income is 16% swing to Rep away from Dem on the lowest income grade.

Data by education seems interesting aswell:

Overall High school or less
45% Dem
51% Rep

White without a college degree
28% Dem
67% Rep

Nonwhite without a college degree   
75% Dem
20% Rep


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

sihhi said:


> Nearly all research on western democracies with mainstream candidates sees participation decreasing as income decreases.
> 
> I have seen it over the years too.


Yeah, but turn-out data is just that, turnout data. The % breakdown of those voters is at issue.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2016)

sihhi said:


> The far and away biggest swing on that exit poll of income is 16% swing to Rep away from Dem on the lowest income grade.


Where are you getting the swing from, sihhi?

EDIT: Seen from the link above.

So it's like I said in post #41 which bimble didn't think was worth replying to, Clinton may still be getting a majority of votes but Trumps taking a far bigger proportion than Romney did.

Be very useful to see the same data over the longer term.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

This is interesting too: 
The two top concerns amongst people who voted Trump were Immigration & terrorism, significantly more important than the economy.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

sihhi said:


> The far and away biggest swing on that exit poll of income is 16% swing to Rep away from Dem on the lowest income grade.
> 
> Data by education seems interesting aswell:
> 
> ...


That speaks more about race as a variable, though.


----------



## sihhi (Nov 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but turn-out data is just that, turnout data. The % breakdown of those voters is at issue.



What do you mean? 

I mean that in most elections - general or local - fewer of those on low incomes cast votes compared to those on middle or high incomes.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 9, 2016)

sihhi said:


> The far and away biggest swing on that exit poll of income is 16% swing to Rep away from Dem on the lowest income grade.
> 
> Data by education seems interesting aswell:
> 
> ...




What do you find interesting about these figures? In the context of this thread specifically.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 9, 2016)

I hope people stop using the word privilege.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

The exit evidence reinforces the notion of a demagogue inflaming & exploiting expectations amongst white folks that they should be significantly better off than black/brown folks.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> So it's like I said in post #41 which bimble didn't think was worth replying to.


Sorry, yes your post makes sense of course. There'll be loads more numbers coming out to chew over at leisure, I just think its too early to set in stone a definitive story of what just happened and why. Also I think the huge numbers that did not vote at all this time are significant.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

sihhi said:


> What do you mean?
> 
> I mean that in most elections - general or local - fewer of those on low incomes cast votes compared to those on middle or high incomes.


Yeah, but if the 'left behind' thesis had validity those that did vote should have done for the demagogue.


----------



## sihhi (Nov 9, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What do you find interesting about these figures? In the context of this thread specifically.



I think that liberals will continue to call nationalism/protectionism-minded 'white' voters 'stupid' because of such figures. 

We might see similar things in France's elections and the next British general elections.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 9, 2016)

One of the problems is "the left"
 Play identiy politics which  runs into the problem the 90% of the population arnt BME and get a little bit sick of being labelled stupid racists  and less hard working than immigrants etc etc. Also the obession with israel doesnt help.

The Unions  have declined and work has changed a lot.


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2016)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think when pointing to the demographics and saying ‘look, it’s not the working class at all!’, people are missing that the demographic of trumps support includes the traditional republican vote as well. The additional support from _angry whites_ was enough to push him over the line, not enough to constitute his entire base.

CF Brexit – the disenfranchised poor are only a part of the story in both cases – but a significant enough part to make a difference. I guess most of the working class (if they vote at all) will still vote along the usual partisan lines.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think when pointing to the demographics and saying ‘look, it’s not the working class at all!’, people are missing that the demographic of trumps support includes the traditional republican vote as well. The additional support from _angry whites_ was enough to push him over the line, not enough to constitute his entire base.
> 
> CF Brexit – the disenfranchised poor are only a part of the story in both cases – but a significant enough part to make a difference. I guess most of the working class (if they vote at all) will still vote along the usual partisan lines.



It's a complicated picture in the US anyway. Some of the richest bits are Democrat-majority, some of the poorest bits Republican-majority. And that's been true for years, at least since the Dems lost the South. And let's not forget why they lost the South - they lost the south because racist white people of whatever income bracket stopped voting for them post-LBJ. There's no cosy way to wrap that up.


----------



## sihhi (Nov 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but if the 'left behind' thesis had validity those that did vote should have done for the demagogue.



There was a 16% swing in that direction. 
Trump as a candidate was a poor demagogue for reasons discussed ad nauseam the photos of his gold room and towers etc.
There will be better ones.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but if the 'left behind' thesis had validity those that did vote should have done for the demagogue.


But as killer b says, for the thesis to be valid it doesn't require a wholesale switching of voters just a significant chunk of them. UKIP didn't take any seats of Labour at the last election but it'd be nonsense to say that there wasn't a drift towards UKIP.


----------



## sihhi (Nov 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think when pointing to the demographics and saying ‘look, it’s not the working class at all!’, people are missing that the demographic of trumps support includes the traditional republican vote as well. The additional support from _angry whites_ was enough to push him over the line, not enough to constitute his entire base.
> 
> CF Brexit – the disenfranchised poor are only a part of the story in both cases – but a significant enough part to make a difference. I guess most of the working class (if they vote at all) will still vote along the usual partisan lines.



Well yes it seems to me the Dems could not get 'their base' out this time unlike in 2008.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 9, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> Is "privileged" a code word for educated?



Education certainly is a privilege.


----------



## Gromit (Nov 9, 2016)

pogofish said:


> I'm puzzled at why this is in *UK Politics*


Yeah cause it will have no effect on the UK and it's political decisions whatsoever.


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 9, 2016)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> There's as much a cultural break in direction/outlook needed in the left, that while not of course unconnected to the political perspective, is IMO one that might be harder to deal with.
> 
> We need to move from an introspective, sub-cultural, low ambition, activist focused scene to a class based, massively ambitious, problem solving, organized movement.
> 
> Answers as to how to do this on a postcard please...



'In the left' is the problem. Start with people outside of it, including me, first.


----------



## Gromit (Nov 9, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> Is "privileged" a code word for educated?


US pundits seem to be concentrating analysis on college educated V non college educated. Especially when it comes to the female vote. It seems it is very significant.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 9, 2016)

pogofish said:


> I'm puzzled at why this is in *UK Politics*



A thread with this title could easily have been started on 24th June this year.


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think when pointing to the demographics and saying ‘look, it’s not the working class at all!’, people are missing that the demographic of trumps support includes the traditional republican vote as well. The additional support from _angry whites_ was enough to push him over the line, not enough to constitute his entire base.
> 
> CF Brexit – the disenfranchised poor are only a part of the story in both cases – but a significant enough part to make a difference. I guess most of the working class (if they vote at all) will still vote along the usual partisan lines.



Combine the additional support _towards_ Trump (or Brexit or UKIP or Le Pen or whatever) with a continuing drift _away _from the Democrats (or Labour or the PS/PCF or whatever) and you have an electoral double whammy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2016)

The least privileged group of all in the US - poor black people - voted overwhelmingly against Trump.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> But its not the defeat for Clinton we should be worried about.
> 
> Its the defeat (or failure) of "the left" to provide the vehicle for an utterly predictable revolt that we should be concerned about.


I don't disagree. But if you pin it at least in large part on the elites dismissing the electorate as thick racists, as the thread title suggests, then given what we now know about America, what would you do with it?

How much of the objective stupidity and racism required to install Trump do you consider to be immutable within any useful timeframe - more cause of the predicament than effect - and how much can be easily dispelled with the right offering and redefinition of the narrative? Clearly 50-something million people can't be written off but yet they - at the very least - held their nose and went with it, so what do you do with that? How welcoming are you willing to be?

And when facing people and ideas that are in themselves explicitly racist and/or stupid, rather than hitching a ride on it, how much are you going to outright reject them, how much are you going to ignore them, and how much are you going to tolerate, humour and accept them at the expense of your actual values?

What if your opponent lies and trades on total fiction? Does it even matter if you can disprove it in this supposedly post-truth [vomit] era?

What if you do all this as best you can and then you lose anyway? Different planet?

And what if you _win_ by being the mirror of Trump? Is it worth anything?

This is a dangerous game. You can freely attack the elites for privilege, conservatism and all the rest of what they represent - as shown up by the disaster that was 'America is already great' - but if you introduce intelligence and racism into that cocktail - _they think you're stupid! you're not!_ - you run the risk of legitimising the very things you're against. Plus you diminish individual responsibility for the vote, for politics. 'They made me do it' as another bona fide idea.

Yet, this late in proceedings, what's the alternative, apart from more patronising 'racism is not the answer' attemptedly-educative leadership from an elite?

There's something to be said for doing precisely nothing and letting the lessons be learnt on their own. But that too is a high stakes gamble and regards whatever happens in the interim as acceptable collateral damage.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 9, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Indeed, seemed to work for Trump and Vote Leave.



It was the Express and Mail that won Brexit. 20+ years of headlines. The web and social media just allowed them better distribution.


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

mauvais said:


> I don't disagree. But if you pin it at least in large part on the elites dismissing the electorate as thick racists, as the thread title suggests, then given what we now know about America, what would you do with it?
> 
> How much of the objective stupidity and racism required to install Trump do you consider to be immutable within any useful timeframe - more cause of the predicament than effect - and how much can be easily dispelled with the right offering and redefinition of the narrative? Clearly 50-something million people can't be written off but yet they - at the very least - held their nose and went with it, so what do you do with that? How welcoming are you willing to be?
> 
> ...



Short answer: Provide a fucking alternative.

So people aren't left with a choice limited to (racist/sexist etc etc) populism or the status quo.

How to create that alternative is the problem.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2016)

Similar point to the OP


> Put this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.



And this is probably even more on the money


> The even larger problem is that there is a kind of chronic complacency that has been rotting American liberalism for years, a hubris that tells Democrats they need do nothing different, they need deliver nothing really to anyone – except their friends on the Google jet and those nice people at Goldman. The rest of us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and no role to play except to vote enthusiastically on the grounds that these Democrats are the “last thing standing” between us and the end of the world. It is a liberalism of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has failed on its own terms of electability.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> Short answer: Provide a fucking alternative.
> 
> So people aren't left with a choice limited to (racist/sexist etc etc) populism or the status quo.
> 
> How to create that alternative is the problem.


But that's the point - that this was already lost before yesterday. It was lost on the day Clinton was chosen as the candidate. In terms of any kind of left position, yesterday's vote was merely determining what the defeat would look like. And this isn't new. When was there last a real choice in a US election?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But that's the point - that this was already lost before yesterday. It was lost on the day Clinton was chosen as the candidate. In terms of any kind of left position, yesterday's vote was merely determining what the defeat would look like. And this isn't new. When was there last a real choice in a US election?


you say that NOW: but you weren't so fucking prescient during the campaign, were you?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

sihhi said:


> There was a 16% swing in that direction.
> Trump as a candidate was a poor demagogue for reasons discussed ad nauseam the photos of his gold room and towers etc.
> There will be better ones.


In the US, not for 4 years. Anyway how does his obscene personal wealth prevent him from prejudice-based rabble-rousing?


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But that's the point - that this was already lost before yesterday. It was lost on the day Clinton was chosen as the candidate. In terms of any kind of left position, yesterday's vote was merely determining what the defeat would look like. And this isn't new. When was there last a real choice in a US election?



..or a British one.

I remember having almost the exact same discussions back in 1993 when Derek Beacon got elected as the BNP's first councillor. 

Even then people were writing off the voters as thick racists whilst at the same time lining up to defend the status quo (in that case a rotten Labour council).

It's not new.

...but the vacuum is getting bigger and bigger as first the "harder" Left (CP, trots etc. collapse in place after place) and then the centre-left starts to drift far to the right, away from its base etc. etc.

On the plus side (sorta) is that it won't be too long before the left has a completely clean slate to build on


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2016)

sihhi said:


> Well yes it seems to me the Dems could not get 'their base' out this time unlike in 2008.



Yes, I suspect that a large part of the picture that we are going to see is the fact that black voters simply did not turn out for Clinton in the same way that they did for Obama and who can blame them. There are other factors at play of course, like voter suppression.

I wonder how effective the Trump campaign's facebook targeting of voters will be seen to be in the end, it seems to me like he used this very effectively in much the same way as the Tories did in 2015.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> ..or a British one.
> 
> I remember having almost the exact same discussions back in 1993 when Derek Beacon got elected as the BNP's first councillor.
> 
> ...


this would be the lib dem run tower hamlets run by labour i suppose.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> But as killer b says, for the thesis to be valid it doesn't require a wholesale switching of voters just a significant chunk of them. UKIP didn't take any seats of Labour at the last election but it'd be nonsense to say that there wasn't a drift towards UKIP.


I remain convinced that the 'left behind' trope is far less credible than the notion of a (nostalgic) "remember better times" cohort. As UKIP spoke to those who remembered the benefits deriving from the period of post-war consensus/system competition, the exit data suggests that Trump spoke to those who used to feel better off than immigrants/blacks/the underclass.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> I remember having almost the exact same discussions back in 1993 when Derek Beacon got elected as the BNP's first councillor.
> 
> Even then people were writing off the voters as thick racists whilst at the same time lining up to defend the status quo (in that case a rotten Labour council).


Vote Labour/Clinton to keep out the BNP/Trump.

I remember when I first started posting on U75 some posters criticising that tactic, that sure it probably would work in the short term but sooner or later it was going to run out of steam and fail. Well it has/is and the consequences aren't good. 

And yet many still persist in it.


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> this would be the lib dem run tower hamlets run by labour i suppose.





Y'see how hard it is to differentiate between the choices of the status quo?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2016)

IMO the culture of liberal punching down is much worse than it is even in Britain. We're just warming up.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 9, 2016)

exactly if the choice is between more of the same but not in a terribly attractive package or sod the lot of you regardless of how much damage it does sod the lot of you will win.

especially when the status quo is a bunch of smartly packaged millionaires telling how we are all in this together
  The left are not even in the argument the ideas are old fashioned and don't work.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 9, 2016)

May keeps on saying Brexit means Brexit when it was defined with a great deal of creative ambiguity by Leave so as snag as many voters as possible. She talks hard Brexit but really does not want to reveal what exactly she'll be trying to get out of the EU. 

We've got an even better puzzler now. Did The Donald really mean the sometimes contradictory platform Trump ran on? Will he lock her up? Will he build the wall and will Mexico pay? Will he turn NATO into a protection racket? Is NAFTA really going to be in shreds? Will he deport the 11 million illegals? Is he going to start a trade war with China? Is he going to make nice with Russia? Is he going to slash elite taxes and up public spending? The man is a bullshit factory whose word is wind. He doesn't listen to advice, he barely reads, he's just got a huge pat on the back for being The Donald. As Bashar Assad observed US Presidents most often enter office saying one thing then do another. Where will The Donald's whims take him?

And I tend to be suspicious that an awful lot of competence to navigate a something as complex as a Brexit is simply lacking in London. They really don't know what they are doing. They evidently really didn't understand how trade deals work in any detail. With Trump its not just trade but a full spectrum lack of experience. He's an able marketing man whose sold America on his deal making ability that mostly rests on a bumpy career flipping high end real estate to dumb rich people. For instance he says he has a plan to destroy IS but its top secret and you know he's just unprepared, empty headily planning to wing it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> Will he turn NATO into a protection racket?


not sure he needs to


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> And I tend to be suspicious that an awful lot of competence to navigate a something as complex as a Brexit is simply lacking in London. They really don't know what they are doing. They evidently really didn't understand how trade deals work in any detail.


yeh. they don't know what they're doing. i wouldn't trust the cabinet to successfully organise revelry in a brewery.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

The racism and misogyny of Trump is not incidental, not a sideshow / unfortunate byproduct of the underlying forces, that at least I hope everyone can agree on.


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)




----------



## sihhi (Nov 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> In the US, not for 4 years. Anyway how does his obscene personal wealth prevent him from prejudice-based rabble-rousing?



There's action all the time it's an ongoing not a 4 year cycle. 

He is quite clearly not a son of the soil neither he nor anyone around him has lived any part of the life of a poor white first hand. In the past 30 years of pain for the American worker he became richer and richer.
Clearly it worked to an extent he secured Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan. His speeches did promise: 'We're going to get the mines back to work'. His son could post "After visiting the rust belt the last week I have seen the terrible side effects of NAFTA. We must renegotiate our failed trade deals! #MAGA" But I believe there was something jarring about his performance which in part explains feelings of overwhelming revulsion about the election campaign.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 9, 2016)

Brits in not entirely up our own bottom shock.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

Trump and Brexit: why it’s again NOT the economy, stupid


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> Trump and Brexit: why it’s again NOT the economy, stupid



Based on the false premise that it's possible to disentangle anti-immigration sentiment from precarious economic conditions. They don't go hand in hand 100% but it isn't far off.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

sihhi said:


> There's action all the time it's an ongoing not a 4 year cycle.
> 
> He is quite clearly not a son of the soil neither he nor anyone around him has lived any part of the life of a poor white first hand. In the past 30 years of pain for the American worker he became richer and richer.
> Clearly it worked to an extent he secured Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan. His speeches did promise: 'We're going to get the mines back to work'. His son could post "After visiting the rust belt the last week I have seen the terrible side effects of NAFTA. We must renegotiate our failed trade deals! #MAGA" But I believe there was something jarring about his performance which in part explains feelings of overwhelming revulsion about the election campaign.


Oh yeah, it's patently obvious that this was a campaign railing against the effects of processes that have enriched and empowered the protagonist; capital's political wing continuing its ideological 'transvestism'.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Based on the false premise that it's possible to disentangle anti-immigration sentiment from precarious economic conditions. They don't go hand in hand 100% but it isn't far off.


Wow. You think its impossible and not worth trying even? Look at the stats for what Trump supporters said was important to them - it was not inequality or the economy, it was immigration and terrorists. Why?


----------



## sihhi (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> View attachment 95235 View attachment 95236
> The racism and misogyny of Trump is not incidental, not a sideshow / unfortunate byproduct of the underlying forces, that at least I hope everyone can agree on.



I think it's disgusting and wholly to be condemned but I believe it is in part a byproduct. I also don't fully see how the Democrat Clinton-Kaine programme was 'less racist' than Trump. Take Hilary's 30 year record of racism - if this was Trump's record it would be regarded as outrageous racism, as it is 'liberal'  it is merely a foible or two.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> Wow. You think its impossible and not worth trying even? Look at the stats for what Trump supporters said was important to them - it was not inequality or the economy, it was immigration and terrorists. Why?



Do you really think that immigration concerns are usually held, or even presented, in isolation from economic anxiety or hardship?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Based on the false premise that it's possible to disentangle anti-immigration sentiment from precarious economic conditions. They don't go hand in hand 100% but it isn't far off.


No it's not. It deals with that by also looking at income correlations. The study claims to have found a factor that diverges markedly from economic conditions, and so cannot be attributed to them.

You might dispute the interpretation, but it doesn't start from that as a premise - rather, it claims to be able to demonstrate it from the data.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2016)

sihhi said:


> I think it's disgusting and wholly to be condemned but I believe it is in part a byproduct. I also don't fully see how the Democrat Clinton-Kaine programme was 'less racist' than Trump. Take Hilary's 30 year record of racism - if this was Trump's record it would be regarded as outrageous racism, as it is 'liberal'  it is merely a foible or two.



and this is probably why Hispanic and black voters turned out in far lower numbers for Clinton than they did Obama.


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 9, 2016)

Hispanic turnout was up a lot  - though white turnout was also apparently up in many of the states where a bigger Latino turnout could have made a difference.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2016)

Yossarian said:


> Hispanic turnout was up a lot  - though white turnout was also apparently up in many of the states where a bigger Latino turnout could have made a difference.



Was it? I've read that it was lower percentage wise than 2008 and 2012.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Do you really think that immigration concerns are usually held, or even presented, in isolation from economic anxiety or hardship?


No they are usually bundled up together, of course. 
Would you also say that economic anxiety explains why 87% of Trump voters said they were 'not at all bothered' by his treatment of women?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> No they are usually bundled up together, of course.
> Would you also say that economic anxiety explains why 87% of Trump voters said they were 'not at all bothered' by his treatment of women?



I can't. That boggles my mind.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 9, 2016)

likesfish said:


> the ideas are old fashioned and don't work



Which ones? Which left? Where?


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I can't. That boggles my mind.


I'd suggest you have to re-think your explanation for the racism / focus on immigrants and terrorists too in that case, that it is not as inevitable and economic as you suppose.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> I'd suggest you have to re-think your explanation for the racism / focus on immigrants and terrorists too in that case, that it is not as inevitable and economic as you suppose.



I don't think it's _inevitable_ at all, the fact that it wasn't at any point inevitable is why I was so against Clinton's candidacy.


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Was it? I've read that it was lower percentage wise than 2008 and 2012.



Record turnout in early voting anyway, and in California, not that it would have made a lot of difference there. 

Latino voter turnout could break records in California


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> Wow. You think its impossible and not worth trying even? Look at the stats for what Trump supporters said was important to them - it was not inequality or the economy, it was immigration and terrorists. Why?



"Why" are racism and immigration such hot topics though, is the point. Neither come from nowhere, they're not simple cultural phenomena, they're built from something. What is that something? The answer can't be separated from the economic landscape.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Do you really think that immigration concerns are usually held, or even presented, in isolation from economic anxiety or hardship?


Dunno about 'usually', but I can give you an anecdotal example. My mum and dad, to my surprise, both voted brexit. They named concern over immigration levels as part of the reason. They live in a bit of the country where there are very few immigrants. They're retired and on a fixed income. Their pension is decent - dad had an old-fashioned final-salary one. They are not rich, but have neither anxiety nor hardship economically.


----------



## sihhi (Nov 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Oh yeah, it's patently obvious that this was a campaign railing against the effects of processes that have enriched and empowered the protagonist; capital's political wing continuing its ideological 'transvestism'.



This to a small degree explains the liberal wing of capital's rage against Trump - one of their own, who was very pro-Clinton letting the cat out of the bag -- that 30 years of hard neoliberalism including Obama made things worse for most Americans.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Dunno about 'usually', but I can give you an anecdotal example. My mum and dad, to my surprise, both voted brexit. They named concern over immigration levels as part of the reason. They live in a bit of the country where there are very few immigrants. They're retired and on a fixed income. Their pension is decent - dad had an old-fashioned final-salary one. They are not rich, but have neither anxiety nor hardship economically.



Their views are still built from the social norms they live within though, and _those_ are built from the experiences of their friends, family, the kid who works down the shop who can't afford a house, newspapers and media which follow and interpret what the masses want to see.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They are not rich, but have neither anxiety nor hardship economically.


Likewise my auntie in Florida is by no means in economic anxiety or hardship and she is definitely a racist. She stayed home at the last minute instead of voting Trump.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 9, 2016)

Isn't there a bit of a problem with the narrative that this Trump victory is all about the racists? Presumably those who would vote primarily on their racist views (let's call them the committed racists) turned out in force in the last two elections to vote Republican against the foreign arab guy, no? So if they did, it raises the question, who voted for Trump on top of those racists?


----------



## sihhi (Nov 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Dunno about 'usually', but I can give you an anecdotal example. My mum and dad, to my surprise, both voted brexit. They named concern over immigration levels as part of the reason. They live in a bit of the country where there are very few immigrants. They're retired and on a fixed income. Their pension is decent - dad had an old-fashioned final-salary one. They are not rich, but have neither anxiety nor hardship economically.



Good for them, but what can that tell us about the way that American citizens perceived undocumented immigration as unfair attempt to displace them from already scarce jobs?


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> No they are usually bundled up together, of course.
> Would you also say that economic anxiety explains why 87% of Trump voters said they were 'not at all bothered' by his treatment of women?


You've misread the table. 87% of Trump voters aren't not at all bothered. What it saus is, Of the people who said they weren't bothered, 87% voted trump.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> immiseration.
> the exit poll says that the lowest income people voted Clinton, I think that is worth a moments pause before the narrative gets fixed.



You keep fixating on these statistics but they show that Clinton secured just over fifty per cent of the vote from this segment of the electorate, hardly a ringing endorsement from what should be her base. Trump meanwhile got over forty per cent of this segment of the vote. Given how the politics of race and class intersect in America he seems to have done pretty well among white blue collar Americans. His results in swing states in the American rust belt like Michigan and Pennsylvania suggests as much. This was once part of the Democrats heartland, which they abandoned by not providing an alternative to de-iundustrialisation, a failure that now leaves space for Trump to do so.

Presumable some the twenty per cent of non-white voters who backed him, including almost one-in-three Latinos, are also working class. If you look at the source of your statistics they suggest that his narrow victory was swung by a significant minority who voted for change, despite reservations about his misogyny, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and competency. So yes, Trump has got a base among white privileged Americans - most white, male, college graduates among them - but his election was one by being able to tap into a constituency which has been immiserated.


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2016)

16% of people surveyed weren't at all bothered, of whom 87% vote trump - so about 13% of trump voters weren't at all bothered.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> You've misread the table. 87% of Trump voters aren't not at all bothered. What it saus is, Of the people who said they weren't bothered, 87% voted trump.



Thanks for this, I thought that it was an unlikely statistic.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 9, 2016)

What is the material basis for racism then? Or does it not have one and is instead just a series of wrong individual choices conjured up only from the head of the particular racist?

And before someone whines 'the media', I'm talking about the material basis. We can easily enough identify or recognise the material basis of the birth of Atlantic racism, where is the basis now then?

 Please don't anyone tell me on here, on a politics forum, that they think it's really just a collection of individual prejudices.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2016)

sihhi said:


> Good for them, but what can that tell us about the way that American citizens perceived undocumented immigration as unfair attempt to displace them from already scarce jobs?


Don't know, except that the brexit vote and the trump vote are certainly linked phenomena, imo. The point I was responding to had to do with the study bimble linked to and an interpretation of that - pointing to the idea that there are other cultural values that are more important determining factors wrt voting brexit/trump.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 9, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> ...non-white ...


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 9, 2016)

Going to try that one again?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 9, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Going to try that one again?



It's a biased term. It's very combatative.


----------



## andysays (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> No they are usually bundled up together, of course.
> Would you also say that economic anxiety explains why 87% of Trump voters said they were 'not at all bothered' by his treatment of women?



Once again, figures are being misread/misunderstood.

The table you posted says that 87% of those who said they were 'not at all bothered' by Trump's treatment of women voted for him, not the other way around

ETA as killer b has already pointed out...


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> It's very combatative.


tbf, you are very combatitive


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


>



What are you trying to imply Krtek? It's the category the pollsters used to group all respondents who didn't identify as 'white'. It also seems relevant to challenging the assumption that his supporters are all white racists. 

For future reference I've got you on ignore, so you should get someone else to give me a heads up if you need a direct response. (I only clicked on 'Show Ignored Content' because seventh bullet 's post didn't make sense.)


----------



## CRI (Nov 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The least privileged group of all in the US - poor black people - voted overwhelmingly against Trump.



This^  (from CNN )
 




J Ed said:


> Yes, I suspect that a large part of the picture that we are going to see is the fact that black voters simply did not turn out for Clinton in the same way that they did for Obama and who can blame them. There are other factors at play of course, like voter suppression.
> 
> I wonder how effective the Trump campaign's facebook targeting of voters will be seen to be in the end, it seems to me like he used this very effectively in much the same way as the Tories did in 2015.



Not surprised but still sick of posts from white folks saying result was (at least partly) down to African Americans not turning out to vote for Clinton.  It plays into the "lazy black people" trope for starters, and minimalises the VERY really efforts at voter suppression aimed at minority ethnic voters - both institutionally (cutting poling places, cutting hours, writing people off electoral roles, ID requirements, etc.) and individually (white men with guns and racist slogan tee shirts standing outside polling places, threats on social media, etc.)

Those Black folks who DID vote, did so overwhelmingly for Clinton.  Non white voters with and without degrees backed Clinton like 3 to 1.  Couldn't find a breakdown by income in the CNN report.

If you want to point a finger, just ask for a minute why *more than half of white wome*n voted for Trump, clearly not bothered by his overt sexism, admission of using sexual violence and the queue of women citing his sexual harassment and abuse of them. 





brogdale said:


> I remain convinced that the 'left behind' trope is far less credible than the notion of a (nostalgic) "remember better times" cohort. As UKIP spoke to those who remembered the benefits deriving from the period of post-war consensus/system competition, the exit data suggests that Trump spoke to those who used to feel better off than immigrants/blacks/the underclass.





redsquirrel said:


> Vote Labour/Clinton to keep out the BNP/Trump.
> 
> I remember when I first started posting on U75 some posters criticising that tactic, that sure it probably would work in the short term but sooner or later it was going to run out of steam and fail. Well it has/is and the consequences aren't good.
> 
> And yet many still persist in it.



Although Illinois backed Clinton, I'm pretty sure that will show up mostly as Cook County (Chicago) and surrounding areas, East St Louis and a few scattered urban areas with significant non-white populations.  Where I come from - rural, working class "Sundown County" in the South of the State, I'd wager like 90% or more voted Trump.  My family's lived there since the early 19th century.  My brother and sister still live there and for the first time ever, said they've felt unable to put up signs, let alone declare support for anyone but Trump.  My parents must be spinning in their graves.

A few of my former neighbours will try and disguise their motivation by saying they didn't agree with this or that about Clinton, but most will be full throated in saying why they supported Trump - not in spite of but BECAUSE of his racist views.  They've always held these views, as have their parents, grandparents, etc.  They're overjoyed to have a leader and congress that does as well and there will be no more pretending they don't see themselves as the master race.

When people whine about this being down to the disaffected working class (either taking a right turn to support Trump or a left turn behind Bernie and unwilling to switch to Clinton because "principles,") what they really mean is the WHITE working class.  Same thing with Brexit.

America never really resolved its endemic racism.  It's kept a lid on it sometimes better than other times.  Now the lid's been blown off.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Nov 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Half the fucking Democratic campaign was just rich white people and a handful of rich ethnic minorities saying 'fucking white ppl smdh' over and over on twitter. People who are so inept to see that that was not a winning strategy will never learn from their mistakes.



Funny thing is like these people banging on about diversity and shit never ever talk about black, brown and latino proles. i can't take these fakes seriously.

i legit was confused when i encountered the same brand of UK intersectionalist, was totally confused as to why on earth they were so obsessed with 'ZOMG white people' as opposed to white supremacy and whiteness, which is different imho...


----------



## Manter (Nov 9, 2016)

1. Look at the income line in this. Trump is not privilege vs unprivileged 
Election 2016: Exit Polls


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 9, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> What are you trying to imply Krtek? It's the category the pollsters used to group all respondents who didn't identify as 'white'. It also seems relevant to challenging the assumption that his supporters are all white racists.
> 
> For future reference I've got you on ignore, so you should get someone else to give me a heads up if you need a direct response. (I only clicked on 'Show Ignored Content' because seventh bullet 's post didn't make sense.)



I'm implying that the term comes across as being white is some kind of default setting or something other people aspire to. I feel that it's divisive and it makes me feel uncomfortable. I think the pollsters need to come up with a more acceptable term. I'm sure I'm not the only person who bridles when they see the term.


----------



## Manter (Nov 9, 2016)

2. Now look at the demographic data. 2016 US Presidential Electoral Map If Only [X] Voted

This was white people- many with above average incomes. 

So we need a different explanation than upsurge of the marginalised working class....


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> 16% of people surveyed weren't at all bothered, of whom 87% vote trump - so about 13% of trump voters weren't at all bothered.


Yes, you're totally right, I misread it. Which has cheered me up quite a lot.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 9, 2016)

You tried at least chillers, any wider point or attempts at discussion along the lines of the op is going to be swallowed up for some time yet.


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2016)

Manter said:


> 2. Now look at the demographic data. 2016 US Presidential Electoral Map If Only [X] Voted
> 
> This was white people- many with above average incomes.
> 
> So we need a different explanation than upsurge of the marginalised working class....


The figures are too crude to draw any conclusions either way, sorry. I don't think they give you enough detail to see how much the lower income vote share is skewed by the black and hispanic vote being so strongly Clinton. Have you seen any white voter/low income breakdowns?


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 9, 2016)

Manter said:


> 2. Now look at the demographic data. 2016 US Presidential Electoral Map If Only [X] Voted
> 
> This was white people- many with above average incomes.
> 
> So we need a different explanation than upsurge of the marginalised working class....


I posted elsewhere, but this shows the change in voter groups in the right hand column: Election 2016: Exit Polls

If we want to know what effect Trump has had (as opposed to some other Republican) then comparing to previous elections is one way to do that. There was a significant swing among poorer, black, Latino and Asian voters towards Trump in this election. You are right about the absolute numbers but that is not the full story.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> The figures are too crude to draw any conclusions either way, sorry. I don't think they give you enough detail to see how much the lower income vote share is skewed by the black and hispanic vote being so strongly Clinton. Have you seen any white voter/low income breakdowns?


You can draw no conclusion at all from looking at the entirely blue map top left for instance? Do you think people of colour are generally wealthier than white men ?


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You tried at least chillers, any wider point or attempts at discussion along the lines of the op is going to be swallowed up for some time yet.



Yep.

I'm sure we'll go through it all again come a Le Pen victory or similar.


----------



## CRI (Nov 9, 2016)

Manter said:


> 2. Now look at the demographic data. 2016 US Presidential Electoral Map If Only [X] Voted
> 
> This was white people- many with above average incomes.
> 
> So we need a different explanation than upsurge of the marginalised working class....


This, absolutely this.

But I already know what the explanation is and don't give a shit if white folk anywhere feel "uncomfortable" by labelling.  Fuck em.  It. was. about. race.

And I was right about voting patterns in Illinois.  It was actually 85% of my old county that voted Trump, not 90% so hoo rah :/


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 9, 2016)

Oh are we at the "look at these rushed polling data graphics which are usually deeply partisan and always ignore little things like turnout, which hasn't topped 60% since 1968" bit of the cycle already? Usually takes longer.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 9, 2016)

CRI said:


> ... If you want to point a finger, just ask for a minute why *more than half of white wome*n voted for Trump...



What is to be gained by demographic finger pointing? Where does it lead other than finding a smaller and smaller segment of the population that can be held less and less responsible for Trump?


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

One question for those that think it was "because racism".

What are you going to do about it?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 9, 2016)

Manter said:


> 2. Now look at the demographic data. 2016 US Presidential Electoral Map If Only [X] Voted
> 
> This was white people- many with above average incomes.
> 
> So we need a different explanation than upsurge of the marginalised working class....


 

tax. avoidance of


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> Yep.
> 
> I'm sure we'll go through it all again come a Le Pen victory or similar.


I've only seen a handful of people on here calling people stupid - admittedly noticeable because they are annoying. On my fb feed I see a lot more of it, but I feel like this thread was never going to reach the right people.


----------



## CRI (Nov 9, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> What is to be gained by demographic finger pointing? Where does it lead other than finding a smaller and smaller segment of the population that can be held less and less responsible for Trump?


Agreed - but finger pointing is going on, and it's mostly disappointed white Democrats (from what I've noticed) who are doing it, towards apocryphal non-white non-voters.

I was just pointing out that there's genuine evidence of a whole other group of turkeys voting for Christmas here.


----------



## CRI (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> One question for those that think it was "because racism".
> 
> What are you going to do about it?


Not much.  I'm no longer a US Citizen.  I live too far away and am too old to do very much.

I support the folks who are trying to prepare for the almighty shit storm that will come, targeted at the most vulnerable folks there, but I can do diddly squat to influence things.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> One question for those that think it was "because racism".
> 
> What are you going to do about it?



What are _you_ going to do about it?


----------



## two sheds (Nov 9, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> I've only seen a handful of people on here calling people stupid - admittedly noticeable because they are annoying. On my fb feed I see a lot more of it, but I feel like this thread was never going to reach the right people.



But if a Trump supporter came on here saying the things Trump has said he/she wouldn't last a couple of posts before being called a thick racist cunt. I'm puzzled as to why is it ok here but not when other people do it on, say, Facebook?


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Don't forget how the those of us who didn't like either candidate but preferred Hilary over sexual predator Trump will be criticised as liberals and therefore; stupid.
> 
> Anyway; the people have spoken. We must respect the result. All hail the rise of the right.


Great Marx's Ghost, he's got us there. 

And to think we'd have got away with it too, if it hadn't been for this meddling krtek.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> One question for those that think it was "because racism".
> 
> What are you going to do about it?


For now, try to argue with people who might want to sweep the extreme racism and hatemongering that Trump campaigned with out of the picture as best as possible, or to think of it as incidental, because no hope of addressing a thing if its existence is denied / smoothed over.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> You can draw no conclusion at all from looking at the entirely blue map top left for instance? Do you think people of colour are generally wealthier than white men ?
> View attachment 95246



Black people are less likely to vote for a white, racist, megalomaniac buffoon than white people? Am I right? Do I get a prize?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You tried at least chillers, any wider point or attempts at discussion along the lines of the op is going to be swallowed up for some time yet.


He has, but one problem with the thread title is that the disdain of the liberal elite clearly _is working_ in the interests of capital. Surely rabble-rousing purposely inflames the very sentiments that will draw patronising ire from the liberal elite; it's all part of the bonding/engagement process.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 9, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Black people are less likely to vote for a white, racist, megalomaniac buffoon than white people? Am I right? Do I get a prize?



Why would you want a prize for stating the obvious?


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 9, 2016)

I think people can't be bothered to look at the exit poll data I posted above. Here are the swings towards Republican since the last election, broken down by ethnic group:

White 1%
Black 7%
Hispanic/Latino 8%
Asian 11%
Other 1%

I'm all for talking about the ingrained racism of white people, but all Trump's racist rhetoric produced a measly 1% swing among white people, smaller than any other named ethnic group. If you have better data please post it up here. But a map of white people voting would, I suspect, have produced a Republican map at every recent election. It's not an explanation of what happened in this one.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Black people are less likely to vote for a white, racist, megalomaniac buffoon than white people? Am I right? Do I get a prize?


You win. But also, if low income / economic insecurity is the key it should follow that white men are the most underpriviledged / insecure in US society.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 9, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> I think people can't be bothered to look at the exit poll data I posted above. Here are the swings towards Republican since the last election, broken down by ethnic group:
> 
> White 1%
> Black 7%
> ...



Do your stats include those who came out to support/vote after not having done so previous elections? That was highlighted as significant throughout the campaign.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> But if a Trump supporter came on here saying the things Trump has said he/she wouldn't last a couple of posts before being called a thick racist cunt. I'm puzzled as to why is it ok here but not when other people do it on, say, Facebook?


You're confusing two issues. Trump said overtly racist things, so anyone repeating them would be saying overtly racist things and would deservedly be called out as racist. That's a different issue to whether people were stupid to vote Trump (which they may have done for a variety of reasons).


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What are _you_ going to do about it?



I don't think it (Trump or Brexit or UKIP or whatever...) was (just) about racism/racists.

I will continue to work in my community, in my workplace etc. advocating an alternative to both kneejerk populism _and_ the status quo that is based upon practical examples of solidarity, mutual aid and so forth. Albeit in the most micro of ways. 

I will continue to believe, and advocate, that a better world is possible.

I will also continue to believe that the "stupid" or "racist" people voting for Brexit for UKIP for Trump etc. also want a better world. However distorted or damaged a form that desire currently takes. And that its worth looking for common ground, for practical, achievable victories that show that world is possible.

Mostly though, that will consist of talking to, and listening to, the people around me.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 9, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Do your stats include those who came out to support/vote after not having done for a long time? That was highlighted as significant throughout the campaign.


Well, I guess it includes everyone because of how the stats are put together, but I don't know if I'm aware of the group you're talking about. An increase in Hispanic/Latino voters is the increased turnout I'm aware of. So they would be included in that swing of 8% towards Trump.


----------



## inva (Nov 9, 2016)

Adolph Reed jr said:
			
		

> For liberals, there is only one option in an election year, and that is to elect, at whatever cost, whichever Democrat is running. This modus operandi has tethered what remains of the left to a Democratic Party that has long since renounced its commitment to any sort of redistributive vision and imposes a willed amnesia on political debate. True, the last Democrat was really unsatisfying, but this one is better; true, the last Republican didn’t bring destruction on the universe, but this one certainly will. And, of course, each of the “pivotal” Supreme Court justices is four years older than he or she was the last time.





> But if the left is tied to a Democratic strategy that, at least since the Clinton Administration, tries to win elections by absorbing much of the right’s social vision and agenda, before long the notion of a political left will have no meaning. For all intents and purposes, that is what has occurred. If the right sets the terms of debate for the Democrats, and the Democrats set the terms of debate for the left, then what can it mean to be on the political left? The terms “left” and “progressive” — and in practical usage the latter is only a milquetoast version of the former — now signify a cultural sensibility rather than a reasoned critique of the existing social order. Because only the right proceeds from a clear, practical utopian vision, “left” has come to mean little more than “not right.”





> Finally, admitting our absolute impotence can be politically liberating; acknowledging that as a left we have no influence on who gets nominated or elected, or what they do in office, should reduce the frenzied self-delusion that rivets attention to the quadrennial, biennial, and now seemingly permanent horse races. It is long past time for us to begin again to approach leftist critique and strategy by determining what our social and governmental priorities should be and focusing our attention on building the kind of popular movement capable of realizing that vision.


quoted from his piece in Harper's Magazine from 2014 link
I'm certain it's been posted on here before but worth a read for anyone who hasn't already.

e2a I thought he had a book coming out on this subject but it seems to have disappeared


----------



## ska invita (Nov 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You tried at least chillers, any wider point or attempts at discussion along the lines of the op is going to be swallowed up for some time yet.


tbf it seems to me it is being discussed above, in that the starting point in the OP is being at least partly challenged by some, using voting stats, that it was in fact the most privileged who voted Trump in


----------



## Manter (Nov 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> The figures are too crude to draw any conclusions either way, sorry. I don't think they give you enough detail to see how much the lower income vote share is skewed by the black and hispanic vote being so strongly Clinton. Have you seen any white voter/low income breakdowns?


This is exit poll data I think- so the more detailed stuff will come a bit later. Nate Silver's site has some interesting scraps but they have basically just posted 'shit, we're going to bed'! 2016 Election Night


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 9, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Why would you want a prize for stating the obvious?


I've tried making a more substantive points to bimble but this was the only one that got a reply.


----------



## andysays (Nov 9, 2016)

ska invita said:


> tbf it seems to me it is being discussed above, in that the starting point in the OP is being at least partly challenged by some, using voting stats, that it was in fact the most privileged who voted Trump in



Once again, I think there is confusion between two different things.

As a general rule across all elections, "more privileged" people (however exactly we define that) are more likely to vote Republican, and "less privileged" people are more likely to vote Democrat.

That general rule hasn't changed, but the most significant change from 2012 to 2016, the one which has led to a Trump/Republican victory rather than the Obama/Democrat victory, is that there's been a growth in the numbers of less privileged people voting for Trump/against Clinton (and I suggest that last bit is more significant than many are acknowledging), whereas the number of more privileged people voting Republican hasn't changed nearly so much.

That's quite different than saying that all or even most of Trump's support comes from the less privileged - we're talking about relative numbers rather than absolutes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2016)

ska invita said:


> tbf it seems to me it is being discussed above, in that the starting point in the OP is being at least partly challenged by some, using voting stats, that it was in fact the most privileged who voted Trump in


The starting point on this thread has to be to analyse its purposely provocative title. To what extent are those doing what the OP suggests right in their analysis - whether of trump or of brexit? 

My rather depressing analysis of Trump would include racist white people seeing their privilege wrt black, latino and other people evaporating and not liking it. Seeing themselves sink in the social scale, but not to the bottom, far from it - meaning that they still consider there is something more to lose. The kind of people who are angry about Obamacare, for instance, because it has seen their insurance premiums go up while those lower in the social scale than them appear to be getting something for nothing, without having had to work for it like they have.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 9, 2016)

ska invita said:


> tbf it seems to me it is being discussed above, in that the starting point in the OP is being at least partly challenged by some, using voting stats, that it was in fact the most privileged who voted Trump in


That's really not what it's about though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 9, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Anyone who wants to get elected seriously needs to ditch any luvvie support that's for sure. Even Bruce couldn't swing it.



Some really nauseating crap has come from people like Joss Whedon, Sarah SiIverman an Louis CK in this campaign. Everything Bruce Springsteen does is nauseating though so we'll ignore him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 9, 2016)

maybe de niro will have that fight with trump now


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My rather depressing analysis of Trump would include racist white people seeing their privilege wrt black, latino and other people evaporating and not liking it. Seeing themselves sink in the social scale, but not to the bottom, far from it - meaning that they still consider there is something more to lose. The kind of people who are angry about Obamacare, for instance, because it has seen their insurance premiums go up while those lower in the social scale than them appear to be getting something for nothing, without having had to work for it like they have.



And plenty of misogynists too. Probably the majority of Trumpeters violently hate women.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 9, 2016)

You can over analyse these things. Trump ran a very unconventional campaign that generated considerable enthusiasm. It was a often childish, conspiracy touting entertainment jumping from controversy to controversy. The smart money thought him doomed but the polls had been up and down like a whore's draws. It turns out it was good enough warts and all.

Clinton did things by the numbers but has been mired in petty scandals by the GOP for decades. I have trouble remembering what her policies were. In fact what I remember is how Trump presented them. I did think Clinton was insincere in some of the post-Bernie positions she assumed.

She had a pretty poor record as Secretary of State whereas Trump is an unknown politically. His argument that she's had thirty years in politics and done nothing much to brag about had purchase. A lot of Americans are simply convinced if things were run like a corporation DC might not be the Death Star of corruption they see it as. They don't get that Trump's real estate business provides almost no relevant experience beyond marketing dodgy constructions to gullible people. 

Trump is deeply flawed probably the only one of the last few Republican primary candidates Hillary could beat and with all his vulnerabilities she just wasn't up to the job.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 9, 2016)

NB// based on a voting-age potential electorate of 225,778,000, and projected turnout of 135,000,000, this year's turnout would be a little under 60%, higher than usual but not extremely so. Of the 40% who didn't, the vast majority are, as usual, from poorer socio-economic backgrounds.

Imv _all_ other calculations and analysis should stem from this. When you talk about X percentage of working class people turning to Trump for answers for example, what it actually means is X percentage of working class people who _could_ vote, who felt the system was _worth_ voting in, turned to Trump as the _only viable candidate other than Clinton_.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 9, 2016)

going back to this table....i find it amazing that 35% of US voters earn $100,000+++ a year...and 66% earn $50k++++...and 85% earn $30k++++
Am i reading that right? If so Americans are a lot wealthier on average than I imagined...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2016)

ska invita said:


> going back to this table....i find it amazing that 35% of US voters earn $100,000+++ a year...and 66% earn $50k++++...and 85% earn $30k++++
> Am i reading that right? If so Americans are a lot wealthier on average than I imagined...


Yes, although you need to factor in the 40% who didn't vote, most of whom will be below average income.


----------



## Manter (Nov 9, 2016)

ska invita said:


> going back to this table....i find it amazing that 35% of US voters earn $100,000+++ a year...and 66% earn $50k++++...and 85% earn $30k++++
> Am i reading that right? If so Americans are a lot wealthier on average than I imagined...


Isn't that voters not Americans?


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 9, 2016)

Not unless things changed markedly between the taking of the 2014 Census and this year (edit: crossposted with other folks noting the red one is of voters, but I'll leave this here as it's actually quite good for comparison with the voter stats)


----------



## Manter (Nov 9, 2016)

Democrats, Trump, and the Ongoing, Dangerous Refusal to Learn the Lesson of Brexit

This is interesting; while I am not sure I am convinced Bernie would have won, it lucidly explains why Clinton lost with reference to both income, institutions *and* racism.... and I think it's pretty persuasive


----------



## two sheds (Nov 9, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> You're confusing two issues. Trump said overtly racist things, so anyone repeating them would be saying overtly racist things and would deservedly be called out as racist. That's a different issue to whether people were stupid to vote Trump (which they may have done for a variety of reasons).



Good point about there being two issues, I'm not sure you can blame people for suspecting that people voting for an explicitly racist candidate might be comfortable with racist views though.

I'm also not convinced it's just the complaint of people being stupid to vote Trump that is criticized. There's quite a lot of sneering at less-left-wing opinions in general. The thread title might equally have read "Left wing people calling less left wing people "stupid" doesn't seem to be working ... "


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

Manter said:


> Democrats, Trump, and the Ongoing, Dangerous Refusal to Learn the Lesson of Brexit
> 
> This is interesting; while I am not sure I am convinced Bernie would have won, it lucidly explains why Clinton lost with reference to both income, institutions *and* racism.... and I think it's pretty persuasive


Yes, but all this stuff about elites being given a good kicking really is laughable; have they not seen who has won and who (will) governs on who's behalf on both sides of the Atlantic?


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yes, but all this stuff about elites being given a good kicking really is laughable; have they not seen who has won and who (will) governs on who's behalf on both sides of the Atlantic?



More like the real elites gave uppity liberal elites a kicking for lecturing them to be right on whilst enjoying their wealth.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yes, but all this stuff about elites being given a good kicking really is laughable; have they not seen who has won and who (will) governs on who's behalf on both sides of the Atlantic?


That article is referring to political elites of the type mentioned in the first paragraph, not _social elites_. Trump may be considered the latter but in no way the former.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That article is referring to political elites of the type mentioned in the first paragraph, not _social elites_. Trump may be considered the latter but in no way the former.


True, but I'm coming at this from a base-superstructure position. Political elites merely represent aspects of capital, and it strikes me that those who no longer want to offer any sugar around the pill have certainly given the sticking plaster brigade a kicking.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That article is referring to political elites of the type mentioned in the first paragraph, not _social elites_. Trump may be considered the latter but in no way the former.


Doesn't change much wrt brogdale's post. He will govern on whose behalf? It will be interesting to see how he handles _not being able to do practically any of what he's promised to do even if he wanted to cos he doesn't have the power to do it_. Someone will be blamed, no doubt, and that's where it could get very nasty indeed.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Doesn't change much wrt brogdale's post. He will govern on whose behalf? It will be interesting to see how he handles _not being able to do practically any of what he's promised to do even if he wanted to cos he doesn't have the power to do it_. Someone will be blamed, no doubt, and that's where it could get very nasty indeed.


For much the same reasons that's almost certainly why May did not want any on-going inquiry into politically directed, militarised policing of direct action.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> For much the same reasons that's almost certainly why May did not want any on-going inquiry into politically directed, militarised policing of direct action.


It will be very different from here, though. He won't be blaming miners or any other workers. He'll continue with the rhetoric that he is on their side, no doubt. Thatcher was the polar opposite to Trump in some ways - remember Keith Joseph telling workers that they'd priced themselves out of their jobs, and so it was their own fault and just tough shit? Trump's been using fascist-style rhetoric that appeals to the working class with rash promises of protectionism. When none of those promises is fulfilled, he needs to have been blocked by someone or a group of someones - a rich and powerful group of someones identified with the old corrupt elite he came to power to sweep away.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It will be very different from here, though. He won't be blaming miners or any other workers. He'll continue with the rhetoric that he is on their side, no doubt. Thatcher was the polar opposite to Trump in some ways - remember Keith Joseph telling workers that they'd priced themselves out of their jobs, and so it was their own fault and just tough shit? Trump's been using fascist-style rhetoric that appeals to the working class with rash promises of protectionism. When none of those promises is fulfilled, he needs to have been blocked by someone or a group of someones - a rich and powerful group of someones identified with the old corrupt elite he came to power to sweep away.


Yet the consequences of realisation on the part of the electorate could well look the same, and draw similar responses from the deep state.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yet the consequences of realisation on the part of the electorate could well look the same, and draw similar responses from the deep state.


Yes, that's true. I wonder how Trump will respond to his first riot. (Although another difference is that a riot will be first a state matter rather than a federal one.)


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, that's true. I wonder how Trump will respond to his first riot.


Live fire, I'd imagine.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Trump's been using fascist-style rhetoric that appeals to the working class with rash promises of protectionism. When none of those promises is fulfilled, he needs to have been blocked by someone or a group of someones - a rich and powerful group of someones identified with the old corrupt elite he came to power to sweep away.



Yes I've been wondering about that as well.  Will the nature of US system (congress, the senate) give him the opportunity to lash out when he can't achieve any of what he's promised?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Yes I've been wondering about that as well.  Will the nature of US system (congress, the senate) give him the opportunity to lash out when he can't achieve any of what he's promised?



Possibly not. And my guess is that he's going to be arse-deep in scandal very very quickly. He may be a lame duck president who achieves fuck all.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 9, 2016)

what is the 'privilege'?


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2016)

Manter said:


> 1. Look at the income line in this. Trump is not privilege vs unprivileged
> Election 2016: Exit Polls


If you read the thread you'd see this has already been discussed, and Trump increased his vote in the lowest income bracket by 16% compared to Romney. That's significant, and if that swing was localised in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania then it probably won him the election. 

To ignore that fact is just stupidity, but feel free and keep losing.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 9, 2016)

should I be reading this as 

'rich people calling poor people 'stupid' doesnt seem to be working...'


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> NB// based on a voting-age potential electorate of 225,778,000, and projected turnout of 135,000,000, this year's turnout would be a little under 60%, higher than usual but not extremely so. Of the 40% who didn't, the vast majority are, as usual, from poorer socio-economic backgrounds.
> 
> Imv _all_ other calculations and analysis should stem from this. When you talk about X percentage of working class people turning to Trump for answers for example, what it actually means is X percentage of working class people who _could_ vote, who felt the system was _worth_ voting in, turned to Trump as the _only viable candidate other than Clinton_.


It'd be interesting to see the change in turnout broken-down by income.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2016)

About not tolerating racism/sexism/homophobia, how about we start here on U75.

Its all very well for some posters to call those who didn't vote apologists for racists but when they are also willing to excuse the clear bigotry directly in front of their noses then they can fuck off quite frankly.


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Possibly not. And my guess is that he's going to be arse-deep in scandal very very quickly. He may be a lame duck president who achieves fuck all.



Hard to imagine him not feuding with Congress by the time he's been in office a few months, along with GOP governors, etc - it might not seem like it right now but the Republican Party as we know it is already dead, Trump is just going to spend the next few years abusing the corpse.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> Does it?
> 
> How many more "shock results" are we going to need to get this?



I know: but what do you say about people who rightfully crave change in an unequal and unfair system - but who choose for their savior a billionaire born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who shits in a golden toilet in a Manhattan highrise with his name emblazoned across the top, who hides his taxes and who is indebted to foreign banks to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> Does it?
> 
> How many more "shock results" are we going to need to get this?


Well given how many decades the "left of Labour" have been doing it while making zero electoral impact one can assume the message will not get through.

Still if this is a reference to Clinton, she won 59,600,000 odd votes. I guess its slightly less harmful to her than the British "left". 

I am sure you are on hand to offer the keys to your electoral communication success. Maybe you won a vote for milk monitor or something.


----------



## Manter (Nov 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Doesn't change much wrt brogdale's post. He will govern on whose behalf? It will be interesting to see how he handles _not being able to do practically any of what he's promised to do even if he wanted to cos he doesn't have the power to do it_. Someone will be blamed, no doubt, and that's where it could get very nasty indeed.


Will be the political elites* who get blamed again for blocking him. 

And if I am feeling negative that's an argument for constitutional change and an erosion of checks and balances; rebranded as vested interests protecting the status quo

 (*and foreigners/Muslims/the poor)


----------



## Manter (Nov 9, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> If you read the thread you'd see this has already been discussed, and Trump increased his vote in the lowest income bracket by 16% compared to Romney. That's significant, and if that swing was localised in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania then it probably won him the election.
> 
> To ignore that fact is just stupidity, but feel free and keep losing.


And if you read the thread you'll see I was made aware of that and it was discussed again 

But carry on and keep being a sanctimonious asshole.


----------



## sihhi (Nov 9, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> NB// based on a voting-age potential electorate of 225,778,000, and projected turnout of 135,000,000, this year's turnout would be a little under 60%, higher than usual but not extremely so. Of the 40% who didn't, the vast majority are, as usual, from poorer socio-economic backgrounds.
> 
> Imv _all_ other calculations and analysis should stem from this. When you talk about X percentage of working class people turning to Trump for answers for example, what it actually means is X percentage of working class people who _could_ vote, who felt the system was _worth_ voting in, turned to Trump as the _only viable candidate other than Clinton_.



A presidential election with more extensive coverage than ever before about the two party candidates. 

Reported turnout at 53% - 119,250,000. The turnout is 10 million LESS than in 2012 (even though the eligible electorate has gone up by about approximately 4 million since 2012), that in itself was much less than 2008.

In fact % turnout is so low that you have to return to 2000 to get a lower percentage turnout.

And with the exception of 1992 - 1996 Perot insurgency, in the post-war period, Trump has won the Presidency with the smallest percentage of popular vote and the smallest percentage of votes of the electorate - 25.5%.

I think - a hunch only - that Candidate Clinton's proximity to power and the US political system was fatal - many of all sorts of colours - simply did not turn out for her.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2016)

sihhi said:


> A presidential election with more extensive coverage than ever before about the two party candidates.
> 
> Reported turnout at 53% - 119,250,000. The turnout is 10 million LESS than in 2012 (even though the eligible electorate has gone up by about approximately 4 million since 2012), that in itself was much less than 2008


Where are you getting that turnout figure from sihhi, I've been looking for one and had trouble finding it.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> Just before everyone makes their mind up that this is all about less priviledged people voting Trump out of despair,  exit polls suggest otherwise.
> View attachment 95229


It was the swing amongst the lower income to Trump that made the difference


----------



## coley (Nov 9, 2016)

Jeff Robinson said:


> And plenty of misogynists too. Probably the majority of Trumpeters violently hate women.


Perhaps "hate" is to strong a word?  more likely it's they object to the idea of a woman in authority.


----------



## coley (Nov 9, 2016)

Manter said:


> Democrats, Trump, and the Ongoing, Dangerous Refusal to Learn the Lesson of Brexit
> 
> This is interesting; while I am not sure I am convinced Bernie would have won, it lucidly explains why Clinton lost with reference to both income, institutions *and* racism.... and I think it's pretty persuasive



Very interesting and largely 'nails it' whoever can't agree with his opinion Brexit and Trump are disasters, the latter? Yes, the former, not really.


----------



## coley (Nov 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yes, but all this stuff about elites being given a good kicking really is laughable; have they not seen who has won and who (will) governs on who's behalf on both sides of the Atlantic?


Fair point, but May seems to have taken some heed ;re the Brexit vote, Cameron's and Osbourne's policies have largely been ditched.


----------



## coley (Nov 10, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Doesn't change much wrt brogdale's post. He will govern on whose behalf? It will be interesting to see how he handles _not being able to do practically any of what he's promised to do even if he wanted to cos he doesn't have the power to do it_. Someone will be blamed, no doubt, and that's where it could get very nasty indeed.



Will he start distancing himself from the KKK and other racist white supremacist groups who's support he seemed to enjoy?
The premature ejaculation of our own home grown racists following Brexit was rapidly snuffed out, I suspect any moves to control the 'exuberance' of similar ( but much stronger and more politically connected groups) in the US will meet with much more 'robust' resistance.
Christ onna crutch, it was bad enough being black under a supposedly 'democratic' administration, got a horrible feeling the wheels are going to fall off big time with the election of this pile of Shyte.


----------



## coley (Nov 10, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yet the consequences of realisation on the part of the electorate could well look the same, and draw similar responses from the deep state.



"he needs to have been blocked by someone or a group of someones - a rich and powerful group of someones identified with the old corrupt elite he came to power to sweep away"

Horribly familiar


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 10, 2016)

So Trump's vote was weakest in the lower income deciles who tend not to vote anyway. Clinton failed to mobilise the same cross class coalition Obama brought out. It seems in the rust belt Blue Collar voters flocked away from the Dems to a grumpy uncle figure promising change in the wooliest of terms in a way they didn't when faced with the choice of another hope monger Obama. A stiffly liberal President who can be charismatic and is rather popular but is often seen as divisive. Trump's voters are mostly the fairly comfortable GOP base; the squeezed middle in a rich country that' rode out of the economic crisis far faster than the UK. However often by working damned hard. And these folk are often mobilised by culture warfare, the petty struggles over identity that liberal America has generally been winning. Actually they often may not be well educated but these are certainly privileged people but even the sleekest of them just have not been feeling it to their satisfaction. And what's perhaps more surprising is Trump's high dislike numbers didn't hurt Senate and Congressional races much. That means Trump gets to pack the Supreme Court with rightwing judges that will shape American life long after he has retired to a life of leisurely groping.

What Septics earn looks a lot better if you work it out in Sterling than it used to in Dubya's day. 

Let's see how the dollar goes under Trump.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2016)

chilango said:


> Does it?
> 
> How many more "shock results" are we going to need to get this?


Best piece i've read on this thus far - despite the last minute collapse into sort of advocating a different way of doing politics that still looks like it will revolve around them - the rest before that it is well worth the read, and yes it does do this through an analysis of this election but can't be helped right now:

Logging Out



> November 8, 2016 – we may remember this as the day that the liberal elite of the American coasts learned of a world outside its Facebook feed. The cohesion of their worldview was ruptured by the maps that split the nation and the liberal imaginary in two, the very cartography that had become a hallmark of that imaginary: blue fringes separated by a vast landscape of red, an unknown continent of resentment, nationalism, family values, and firearms.
> 
> For the months running up to this upset, the liberal worldview attempted to maintain its unity, portraying the residents of the Rust Belt as dupes of an absurd, spectacular machine. They had been swayed by the ravings of a buffoon who appealed to their most ignorant, reprehensible prejudices. Yet the rational and literate among us, this narrative assumed, could not possibly resist the allure of a pantsuit, an elegant and professional uniform of the American future for the cosmopolitan and enlightened liberal who prefers drone strikes to militias. Backed by a tremendous war chest, an arsenal of celebrities, and a claim to represent love itself, this exemplary liberal subject would determine the course of the election. Its votes would outnumber those of the dupes; it would see itself reflected in the White House, to carry on the legacy of the University of Chicago professor.





> There are many reasons for this bizarre outcome, religion and social values among them. But there is a deep, drastic failure in the identitarian strategy to mobilize its very own constituency – one which has its obverse in Trump’s extraordinarily successful white-nationalist identity politics. With the demographic shifts in the United States, Trump’s anti-immigrant racism should have destroyed him from the beginning. Yet the Clinton campaign managed to convince many non-white voters to stay home, and some to vote for the candidate endorsed by the KKK. There is no question that white racism contributed massively to Trump’s success; but to combat racism in this country, we will have to rethink an anti-racist strategy that has served mostly to diversify the professional-managerial class





> During the election, we saw the same dynamic. Some of the most significant sectors of the ruling bloc lined up behind Clinton: elements from the military, CIA, big capital, mainstream media, and Wall Street. Influential Republicans, from Colin Powell to Glenn Beck, said they’d vote Democrat. The Clinton camp had money, infrastructure, networks, and a vast, experienced ground game. Trump had nothing in comparison, despite winning a majority of the wealthiest voters. Major sectors of the ruling bloc had chosen Clinton – and yet, despite the odds, they lost.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 10, 2016)

Yossarian said:


> Record turnout in early voting anyway, and in California, not that it would have made a lot of difference there.
> 
> Latino voter turnout could break records in California



There were a lot of these headlines, and I do wonder if this provided motivation for a greater turnout of Trump supporters, and whether this was the intent of running these stories, especially with the (false) narrative of voter fraud in minority communities already in play.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Best piece i've read on this thus far - despite the last minute collapse into sort of advocating a different way of doing politics that still looks like it will revolve around them - the rest before that it is well worth the read, and yes it does do this through an analysis of this election but can't be helped right now:
> 
> Logging Out


Yep, good...and rare to see this sort of analysis...


> To be sure, it has opened a space for a right-wing extremism that should put all those who care about justice on alert. Yet at the same time, *we see that the ruling bloc is not so omnipotent, not so monolithic. *On the Democratic side, the establishment crushed the Bernie Sanders campaign. But on the Republican side, Trump secured the nomination by taking advantage of the wide and incoherent field.





> Of course, this fragmentation is not the same as _weakness_ – the ruling bloc will adapt, will maintain the existing structures of property and power, and will likely profit handsomely while continuing to repress working people. But _*it nevertheless shows that the divisions within the bloc are more severe than we thought, and that the ruling bloc’s overall ability to steer the course of U.S. politics is not as firm as we feared.*_


That chimes with the likes of Streeck who are promoting the notion that capital's political elite do not know how to engineer their way out of this current, on-going crisis and that the strategic divisions in their panicked reactions are becoming clearer.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 10, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yep, good...and rare to see this sort of analysis...
> ​That chimes with the likes of Streeck who are promoting the notion that capital's political elite do not know how to engineer their way out of this current, on-going crisis and that the strategic divisions in their panicked reactions are becoming clearer.



Anyone who spends five minutes looking through the leaked Podesta e-mails understands that these people do not know WTF is going on.


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> despite the last minute collapse into sort of advocating a different way of doing politics that still looks like it will revolve around them


Almost every recent piece of analysis I've read that attempts to advocate some sort of solution ends up in a similar kind of flop TBH, even if it's been otherwise decent. No-one seems to have a clue wtf to do.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Anyone who spends five minutes looking through the leaked Podesta e-mails understands that these people do not know WTF is going on.



I heard Streeck lecture again the other night, and at one point he alighted on the (genuine) debates that the elites have entered into regarding 'helicopter £' as a last resort. He said that you can tell that they've lost the plot completely when their debate centres upon the question of whether, once the notes 'have hit the ground', the people would use them to pay off their debt or fulfill their 'social duty to consume'.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 10, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I heard Streeck lecture again the other night, and at one point he alighted on the (genuine) debates that the elites have entered into regarding 'helicopter £' as a last resort. He said that you can tell that they've lost the plot completely when their debate centres upon the question of whether, once the notes 'have hit the ground', the people would use them to pay off their debt or fulfill their 'social duty to consume'.



I saw that he was speaking, do you know if it was recorded?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I saw that he was speaking, do you know if it was recorded?


Yes, both LSE & PERC reckon they're going to put it out as a podcast but neither have yet. Verso might possibly have asked them not to for a while during which the great man continues to flog the product!


----------



## J Ed (Nov 10, 2016)

Lots of vox pops on the news from people in America who seem to think the problem is 'white men' and they state that openly. The people saying this are almost exclusively white. What a grossly alienating way of doing politics, if you wanted someone to lose elections or other political contests and actions you would tell them to say things like that.


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 10, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> There were a lot of these headlines, and I do wonder if this provided motivation for a greater turnout of Trump supporters, and whether this was the intent of running these stories, especially with the (false) narrative of voter fraud in minority communities already in play.



Nah, all the Latino turnout stories were coming from anti-Trump papers, which is all of them except the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the KKK Crusader, and the National Enquirer. "Newspaper endorsements don't mean jack shit" is another lesson from this election.


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2016)

"There is no question that white racism contributed massively to Trump’s success; but to combat racism in this country, we will have to rethink an anti-racist strategy that has served mostly to diversify the professional-managerial class." says that article above.
Wonder what that means, what this new ant-racist strategy would look like.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> "There is no question that white racism contributed massively to Trump’s success; but to combat racism in this country, we will have to rethink an anti-racist strategy that has served mostly to diversify the professional-managerial class." says that article above.
> Wonder what that means, what this new ant-racist strategy would look like.


I would have thought that 'what it means' is pretty obvious; that the liberal elite see 'affirmative action' in their own workplaces (bubble) and assume that such 'progressive' improvement applies across the piece.


----------



## chilango (Nov 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Best piece i've read on this thus far - despite the last minute collapse into sort of advocating a different way of doing politics that still looks like it will revolve around them - the rest before that it is well worth the read, and yes it does do this through an analysis of this election but can't be helped right now:
> 
> Logging Out



It occurs to me that the "logging out" they advocate is something I (accidentally) did a few years back when I gradually stopped doing activist stuff and looked around and realised that none of my contemporaries social were activists (or even Political) anymore either.

A break or rupture confirmed when I moved back here, and didn't (Urban aside) plug back into my old networks.

Anyone that's known me on here for the duration might notice how that's really changed my arguments.

I still "have the same politics" but but it manifests in a radically different way now.

I'd argue that this "logging out" is something more should do.

Abandon your vehicles not your destination!

(Sorry, a pretty wooly post I know , but...)


----------



## chilango (Nov 10, 2016)

I've asked this before, but as it's appearing on several threads now...

...if you're arguing the result can be explained by the fact it was racist/sexist/white men (whatever - racist, anti-immigrants in the case of Brexit) _voting on those grounds_, the what do you propose to do to win next time around?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> So Trump's vote was weakest in the lower income deciles who tend not to vote anyway. Clinton failed to mobilise the same cross class coalition Obama brought out. It seems in the rust belt Blue Collar voters flocked away from the Dems to a grumpy uncle figure promising change in the wooliest of terms in a way they didn't when faced with the choice of another hope monger Obama. A stiffly liberal President who can be charismatic and is rather popular but is often seen as divisive. Trump's voters are mostly the fairly comfortable GOP base; the squeezed middle in a rich country that' rode out of the economic crisis far faster than the UK. However often by working damned hard. And these folk are often mobilised by culture warfare, the petty struggles over identity that liberal America has generally been winning. Actually they often may not be well educated but these are certainly privileged people but even the sleekest of them just have not been feeling it to their satisfaction. And what's perhaps more surprising is Trump's high dislike numbers didn't hurt Senate and Congressional races much. That means Trump gets to pack the Supreme Court with rightwing judges that will shape American life long after he has retired to a life of leisurely groping.
> 
> What Septics earn looks a lot better if you work it out in Sterling than it used to in Dubya's day.
> View attachment 95258
> Let's see how the dollar goes under Trump.


so nothing to do with fracking and the subsequent energy boom i suppose


----------



## brogdale (Nov 10, 2016)

chilango said:


> I've asked this before, but as it's appearing on several threads now...
> 
> ...if you're arguing the result can be explained by the fact it was racist/sexist/white men (whatever - racist, anti-immigrants in the case of Brexit) _voting on those grounds_, the what do you propose to do to win next time around?


But that sort of question does presuppose that everyone making such an 'analysis' of the vote intends to engage with/join the next electoral contest.


----------



## chilango (Nov 10, 2016)

brogdale said:


> But that sort of question does presuppose that everyone making such an 'analysis' of the vote intends to engage with/join the next electoral contest.



Well I'm assuming that they'd want a different outcome next time at least...


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2016)

chilango said:


> I've asked this before, but as it's appearing on several threads now...
> 
> ...if you're arguing the result can be explained by the fact it was racist/sexist/white men (whatever - racist, anti-immigrants in the case of Brexit) _voting on those grounds_, the what do you propose to do to win next time around?



Look at butcher's article above, which says that white racism contributed massively to Trump’s success and then goes on to suggest a new kind of anti-racist strategy is needed. I'd like to find out more about what this could be not just what it isn't. Haven't got the answers, obviously, but one thing that seems to be a factor is the more diverse the demographic of where you live the less likely you are to be drawn to xenophobic rhetoric, the more contact you have with actual real live immigrants / foreigners the less likely you were to vote ukip etc.


----------



## inva (Nov 10, 2016)

chilango said:


> I've asked this before, but as it's appearing on several threads now...
> 
> ...if you're arguing the result can be explained by the fact it was racist/sexist/white men (whatever - racist, anti-immigrants in the case of Brexit) _voting on those grounds_, the what do you propose to do to win next time around?


banking on the magical power of demographics to dispel the ruling class & social structures that foster and exploit social divisions..


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> so nothing to do with fracking and the subsequent energy boom i suppose


More just a little Federal level economics 101 while the UK and most of Europe buggered about with insane recovery retarding austerity policies.


----------



## flypanam (Nov 10, 2016)

Here's an article that takes issue with some of the identitarians and their support for Clinton. Worth a read.

A plague on the Whitehouse


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> Look at butcher's article above, which says that white racism contributed massively to Trump’s success and then goes on to suggest a new kind of anti-racist strategy is needed. I'd like to find out more about what this could be not just what it isn't. Haven't got the answers, obviously, but one thing that seems to be a factor is the more diverse the demographic of where you live the less likely you are to be drawn to xenophobic rhetoric, the more contact you have with actual real live immigrants / foreigners the less likely you were to vote ukip etc.


Clinton was still associated with the whole reheated Reaganism of the "I feel your pain" thing and Ronnie's NAFTA project. She tilted slightly to the left after Bernie but really it was going to be a 90s rehash and that direction failed a lot of people. Running away from a large white blue collar base that's often a good deal less liberal to court minorities that in the end didn't care for her as much as Obama or her charismatic husband was a tactical error. In a democracy you can't always lead the voter as quickly as you'd like and tolerant trends can go backwards. Consider wide Jewish inclusion in Austria in the 20s and what followed.

The other sad reality is for all the focus on Trump's race baiting America may actually have been more ready for a black President than a female one. Which may be connected with a lot of men feeling unmanned by serial divorce and shifts in the labour market that favour employing women who tend at least to be functionally literate. To repurpose what comes out of Trump's strange potty mouth they feel they've been grabbed by the pussy like a bitch. 

Most white Americans are actually OK with the old gender/racial order crumbling; it's a signifiant minority that are not. What's new about Trump is unlike obviously far more racist Presidents like Woodrow Wilson or a sexual predators like the Kennedy clan produced he operates in an environment where white male supremacy has stopped being the default setting and he's transgressing norms of politeness.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Lots of vox pops on the news from people in America who seem to think the problem is 'white men' and they state that openly. The people saying this are almost exclusively white. What a grossly alienating way of doing politics, if you wanted someone to lose elections or other political contests and actions you would tell them to say things like that.





> Looking at only the swing states — either those that were close or were projected to be in the polls — Clinton mostly met her benchmarks. On average, her results were only 0.5 points worse than what the polls had projected. In almost two-thirds of swing states, the polls had pegged her support to within a single point.
> 
> Trump, however, did much better. He beat his swing state polls by an average of 3.2 points. This was enough to flip Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin over to his camp and against expectations. And these states had more than enough electoral college votes to give Trump the win.
> 
> Trump beat his polls by the widest margins in the swing states of Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina and Wisconsin. It is no coincidence that Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Minnesota had some of the largest white electorates of the swing states.





> But in states where there were large Hispanic populations, like Nevada and New Mexico, Trump did worse than his polls had predicted. Perhaps thanks to higher Hispanic turnout, Clinton fared better in these states, along with Arizona.
> 
> Lower African-American turnout, on the other hand, may have hurt Clinton in states where she underperformed her polls, such as South Carolina, Ohio and North Carolina.





> The polls suggested that Clinton would win Pennsylvania by about three points. Instead, she lost it by one. The polls appear to have missed Trump's support among whites who, according to exit polls, made up a little more of the electorate in Pennsylvania than in 2012. Some final polls put his advantage at between five and 11 points among white voters in the state. Exit polls suggest he won that vote by 16 points.
> 
> In Michigan, projected for Clinton by two points, Trump narrowly edged her out. Here again, the polls appear to have missed his support among whites by a significant margin. One late poll put his advantage among white voters in Michigan at 10 points. Exit polls indicate he won them by 21 points.
> 
> Wisconsin may have been the most surprising swing state of the night. Polls gave it to Clinton by about five points. Trump took it by one. Here again, two polls gave white voters to him by one or two points while exit polls show he won it by 13 instead.





> What the polls missed seems clear. Trump's strong support among white Americans was underestimated, either because the polls were not reaching them or pollsters misjudged the share of the electorate whites would have. Miscalculations in the turnout projections of different demographic groups may have been a major factor.



Missing the mark: Pollsters failed to see Trump's true support among white voters


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2016)

Interesting point about the possibility of systematic errors in prediction of turnout. You also have to factor into that the various states that have introduced stricter voter registration procedures, which disproportionately affect black people. 

But there's also a simpler explanation, one that we're used to here in the UK, where you substitute Trump for Tory. People were embarrassed to admit to voting for Trump, even in an anonymous poll, so they lied.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 10, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You also have to factor into that the various states that have introduced stricter voter registration procedures, which disproportionately affect black people.



I can't see that slowing with Republicans now ascendant.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 10, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Missing the mark: Pollsters failed to see Trump's true support among white voters



Yes, he did better with white men than expected, white women too. What now? Is the answer to tell them they are scum, perhaps genetically inferior as David Brooks put it?


----------



## gosub (Nov 10, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I heard Streeck lecture again the other night, and at one point he alighted on the (genuine) debates that the elites have entered into regarding 'helicopter £' as a last resort. He said that you can tell that they've lost the plot completely when their debate centres upon the question of whether, once the notes 'have hit the ground', the people would use them to pay off their debt or fulfill their 'social duty to consume'.


I though when GW Bush tried it there was a massive spike in purchases of pornography


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes, he did better with white men than expected, white women too. What now? Is the answer to tell them they are scum, perhaps genetically inferior as David Brooks put it?



I'd say that's kind of a big leap.

A more measured response might be to acknowledge that there continues to exist a wide gap between the races in the US - economically, socially, and, it would seem, politically.

The president-elect got to be that way by pandering to that divisiveness, and to the fears and misconceptions of the white majority.

Perhaps something good will come of this election if people of vision begin to realize that the only way forward for the United States, is by working to create a unified nation, working to reduce the real and perceived differences in the position of the races.

Because imo, pandering to division, and ultimately widening the gap, will lead to the eventual destruction of that country.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 10, 2016)

> Clearly a large proportion of American citizens—not as many as voted for Hillary Clinton, but still, under our strange system, enough—wanted Trump as their president and now hope that he fulfills the loud promises he repeatedly made to the country.
> 
> But those promises are the problem. Donald Trump ran on a platform of relentless, thoroughgoing rejection of the Constitution itself, and its underlying principle of democratic self-government and individual rights. True, he never endorsed quartering of troops in private homes in time of peace, but aside from that there is hardly a provision of the Bill of Rights or later amendments he did not explicitly promise to override, from First Amendment freedom of the press and of religion to Fourth Amendment freedom from “unreasonable searches and seizures” to Sixth Amendment right to counsel to Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship and Equal Protection and Fifteenth Amendment voting rights.
> 
> ...



Donald Trump Has Broken the Constitution


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 10, 2016)

The neo libs certainly need to 'log out' & see that their shit like Uber & Deliveroo that they claim are 'disrupters' is nothing compared to the 'disrupters' now kicking back at them.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 10, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Donald Trump Has Broken the Constitution



It was already broken.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It was already broken.


And all the King's horses and all the King's men
Couldn't put the constitution together again


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'd say that's kind of a big leap.
> 
> A more measured response might be to acknowledge that there continues to exist a wide gap between the races in the US - economically, socially, and, it would seem, politically.
> 
> ...



Exactly. Pandering to it is not the answer. "Listen to the voices of the forgotten" , ok. Don't call them stupid or racist, ok. But what if the voices are the commentators in the DM? Or my crazy auntie in Florida ? Does that mean what they want is what should happen next - build the wall, deport the illegal terrorist immigrant hordes etc?


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> Does that mean what they want is what should happen next - build the wall, deport the illegal terrorist immigrant hordes etc?


of course not.


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2016)

killer b said:


> of course not.


Theresa May seems to think it is. I hope she's just pretending though.


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2016)

What?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> Theresa May seems to think it is. I hope she's just pretending though.


Yeh May's always on about building walls, right


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 10, 2016)

Just her usual piss-taking.


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2016)

why can't you argue with things people are actually saying?


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2016)

killer b said:


> What?


I meant, her public statements since she got the job appear to be designed to pander to the idea that stopping freedom of movement and reducing immigration is more important than anything else, because that's what she thinks she heard in the voices of the leave vote. Just like Trump must know the wall will never happen, but the idea of it appealed to the people who would vote for him.
The people who voted for him ranked immigration and terrorism as their top concerns, remember, not the economy or inequality.
I agree that calling people stupid is stupid, but think pandering to racism and xenophobia is stupid too, and that's happening, for want of any alternative.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 10, 2016)

One of the sad realities of democracy is people collectively are often stupid and hopefully reckless. Animated by easily stirred petty hatreds more than striving ideals. That does not just apply to the under educated or dim. The idea crowds uniformly make wise decisions is essentially a comforting superstition on a par with believing in the Little People. Democracies work because much constitutional clutter gets in the way of the fluttering animal spirits of the people. They're perhaps less prone to catastrophic errors. Being wealthy developed counties they often can get away with burst of utter daftness just ending up a little less sleek and no less smug rather than chastened in poverty.  

The US elected a patrician Texan governor twice despite him making a colossal strategic error invading Iraq. The Brits reelected PMs who were enthusiastic passengers in that. They barely blinked at a reckless No 10 being one of the main authors of a smaller cock up in Libya. Now the US has elected the first President without any legislative or military experience at a time when the Presidency has almost Kingly powers. He is essentially a wilful conspiracy theorist with a vulgar gift for marketing himself as a saviour. He will be unrestrained by a Hill dominated by the GOP who are terrified of his far right base. I hope the old scoundrel will surprise us in a good way. Men do rise to office. I doubt far more interesting times lie ahead.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> The US elected a patrician Texan governor twice despite him making a colossal strategic error invading Iraq.


to be fair, pretty much no one knew in 2000 that in 2003 he would invade iraq.


----------



## bluescreen (Nov 10, 2016)

This article from Election Data makes some fairly obvious points about the appeal to emotions and how they tend to get overlooked in demographic electoral modelling. 
Well, obvious once he points them out. How do you feel? Don’t ask.


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> He will be unrestrained by a Hill dominated by the GOP who are terrified of his far right base.


This is the thing. What if 'the people', the ones that nobody can call stupid or racist, are perceived to be mainly energised by targets for deportations of foreigners, and in paying less tax, or banning Muslims etc. Those out of touch elites have been chastened by their failure to 'listen' so if they want to keep their jobs they'd better start deporting.


----------



## tommers (Nov 11, 2016)

This has probably been posted already but whatever.  It's appropriate for this thread...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 11, 2016)

There is a lot wrong with that IMO. The _left_, what the fuck does that even mean? Ridiculing safe spaces? A bastard trick. What's his political standpoint? How does he get to speak from outside of it all? Truth is he can't. I could go on but am at work so suppose I better do some.


----------



## Athos (Nov 11, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> There is a lot wrong with that IMO. The _left_, what the fuck does that even mean? Ridiculing safe spaces? A bastard trick. What's his political standpoint? How does he get to speak from outside of it all? Truth is he can't. I could go on but am at work so suppose I better do some.



I think it's an overstatement to suggest that he's "ridiculing safe spaces".  He's making the point that, a lot of what now passes for the left (not really left at all, in my opinion, but liberal identity politics freaks) seems to have given up on anything other than talking to itself.  Whether that's through trying to silence those with whom they disagree e.g. no platforming, shouting then down, or trying to get them to shut up by smearing them.

And, whilst I don't agree with everything he says, there's some truth in that point. It's not an effective tactic for any meaningful change.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 11, 2016)

Thing is like brexit this isn't an overwhelming majority for trump it was about half of those that bothered to vote voted for trump.

due to the the rather strange system the yanks have with the electoral college it looks like a massive vote for trump.

So good news at least half the US doesnt vote for racist shitbags 
 Unfortunatly half that  does gets out to vote

Unfortunatly every fuckwit who cant be bothered to vote or decides in a two horse race to be an "extra special snowflake"and vote for a third choice  you get trump


----------



## Jurrihahay (Nov 11, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> There is a lot wrong with that IMO. The _left_, what the fuck does that even mean? Ridiculing safe spaces? A bastard trick. What's his political standpoint? How does he get to speak from outside of it all? Truth is he can't. I could go on but am at work so suppose I better do some.


I think you might not understand him because you seem to be one of those he's talking about.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 11, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> I think you might not understand him because you seem to be one of those he's talking about.



_'One of those'_ . Right. 

Disagreeing with something he says means I don't understand. Right.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Nov 11, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> _'One of those'_ . Right.
> 
> Disagreeing with something he says means I don't understand. Right.


Oh shit, you just got me with the facepalms and rolleyes.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 11, 2016)

Thank fuck I have people like you and him to point out just what everyone else is doing wrong and that everyone else besides yourselves, are failing.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Nov 11, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Thank fuck I have people like you and him to point out just what everyone else is doing wrong and that everyone else besides yourselves, are failing.


Everybody's failing.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 11, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Everybody's failing.



What you've attempted here is to back peddle after a pointless, snidey dig at me.

I preferred it when you seemed to be arguing that there is only one perspective, you know, the one that you and JP have but others don't. I preferred that because I truly believe you  think like that, hence you rushing to condescend to me, like _you_ can tell me who I am or not. Pretty ironic given the title of this thread.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Nov 11, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What you've attempted here is to back peddle after a pointless, snidey dig at me.
> 
> I preferred it when you seemed to be arguing that there is only one perspective, you know, the one that you and JP have but others don't. I preferred that because I truly believe you  think like that, hence you rushing to condescend to me, like _you_ can tell me who I am or not. Pretty ironic given the title of this thread.


I made an observation based on your reaction to the video and my reading of the kind of thing you usually say on here. That's all.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> I think it's an overstatement to suggest that he's "ridiculing safe spaces".  He's making the point that, a lot of what now passes for the left (not really left at all, in my opinion, but liberal identity politics freaks) seems to have given up on anything other than talking to itself.  Whether that's through trying to silence those with whom they disagree e.g. no platforming, shouting then down, or trying to get them to shut up by smearing them.
> 
> And, whilst I don't agree with everything he says, there's some truth in that point. It's not an effective tactic for any meaningful change.




it's an effective tactic for facisim. thats all. it worked for the nazis why not the left?


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2016)

If people haven't seen this on the other thread its well worth a read....



JimW said:


> Kenan Malik, reiterates much of what's been said here, points to a failure of genuine social opposition allowing fake outsiders like trump in:
> HOW AMERICA GOT TRUMPED


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 11, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> I made an observation based on your reaction to the video and my reading of the kind of thing you usually say on here. That's all.



Oh, back to snidey...okay.

I'll do the same of you then and call you a condescending prick. There. Glad we've both been clear.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 11, 2016)

I dunno why anyone bothers arguing with you lol


----------



## Jurrihahay (Nov 11, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh, back to snidey...okay.
> 
> I'll do the same of you then and call you a condescending prick. There. Glad we've both been clear.


I have no problem with being thought a prick nor considered condescending.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 11, 2016)

Since when have the right wing been silenced though? They're louder than ever. It's like that claim that 'you can't talk about immigration' when the political debate in this country has been nothing but that for about a decade. It's not like headlines about tidal waves of migrants are only appearing on handbills passed around at political meetings upstairs in pubs. This stuff is everywhere, this is the establishment. British jobs for British workers. Controlled immigration mugs. Families split with forced deportations. 

A few wet college kids waving banners or the odd snide remark on Twitter has silenced nothing.

It's more to do with the erosion of compassion and solidarity, every man for himself. How did we end up with people wishing refugees would drown? How do you debate someone away from such a position? Where do you even fucking start? I can't begin to get my head round it, but I don't think it's predominantly the fault of the left.

Maybe trump getting office will remove the argument that the right are somehow oppressed, deny them their victimhood.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 11, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Unfortunatly every fuckwit who cant be bothered to vote or decides in a two horse race to be an "extra special snowflake"and vote for a third choice  you get trump



So 45%-odd of the US public are fuckwits because they were either barred or couldn't bring themselves to vote for the same shit-eating "there is no alternative" politics as has battered them for 30 years? Rather than the political consensus that alienated them?


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 11, 2016)

bimble said:


> This is the thing. What if 'the people', the ones that nobody can call stupid or racist, are perceived to be mainly energised by targets for deportations of foreigners, and in paying less tax, or banning Muslims etc. Those out of touch elites have been chastened by their failure to 'listen' so if they want to keep their jobs they'd better start deporting.



A significant proportion of Trump's vote was explicitly and deliberately racist and misogynistic. A spectrum of voters, from Nazi-fascist Hitler worshippers to much of the mainstream religious right, clearly fits this bill. Beyond these constituencies many others clearly responded favourably, or at least failed to be put off, by his racist, anti-immigrant campaign and multiple credible allegations of a history of sexual violence, making it hard to argue that any vote for Trump wasn't structurally racist and sexist. But we are also confronted with exit polls that seem to show that the *swing toward Trump* was made up of those on low incomes including union organised Democratic Party affiliates. It even seems to have been larger among voters from ethnic groups other than white (only up +1% on a lower white turnout). No doubt these figures need to be interpreted carefully even if they are accurate, but they also suggest the need to reflect on how Trump was allowed to win. How do we get beyond a situation where defending women's reproductive freedom and opposing white supremacy means voting for a corrupt establishment candidate who cleaves to a broken and exploitative economic model, leaving the field open for the Tories and Trump to offer an alternative to a segment of the electorate who are rightly disillusioned with the status quo?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 11, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> So 45%-odd of the US public are fuckwits because they were either barred or couldn't bring themselves to vote for the same shit-eating "there is no alternative" politics as has battered them for 30 years? Rather than the political consensus that alienated them?



This is good:

How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind


----------



## Athos (Nov 11, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> it's an effective tactic for facisim. thats all. it worked for the nazis why not the left?



Becasue of the tension between aims and methods.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 11, 2016)

If you were a reasoning Leave voter you may have been putting you faith in the likes of Liam Fox and Boris Johnson actually being competent enough to navigate a decade of huge diplomatic, legal and economic change. You could hope it would make the UK great again or at least push off from a failing European project the UK had done a great deal to undermine. You'd have been right to assume even if it turned out costly the UK, or at least England, would essentially be OK. The economic predictions were just a reduction in growth over a couple of decades and contrary to all economic sense the UK had just gone austerity crazy in a recession so that was really just more of the same.

Joining the EU was a Tory led departure from the liberal UK's hostility to The Continent. It was seen as a way of paring down the post-48 social contract and statist Keynesian policy. Looked at objectively Brexit is a minor shift towards an even more neoliberal world view by a faded second order power that's become a one party Tory state in the process. I take the trio of Brexiters managing the process at their word. Britain is going to China. Brits will probably find it a little less easy to live in Europe the way I do not least because Sterling's long fall will accelerate. Some will pay more for their beloved BMWs and soft cheeses but the better sort of chap will probably make out like union busters. The worse off may see wages fall to compete with 3rd world sweat shops. Back to the days of the Raj; hurrah some will say. But the reality is for 70% of the population slowly leaving the EU will make little difference and it will be a long process.

Trump's very different. It's far more like Farage or rather one of his whackier _Bongo Bongoland_ minions had been elected PM and the UK was actually as important an actor as up their own arse Brits think it is. Things can change very quickly for Americans. The availability of abortion and healthcare are obvious in your face examples. Employers very soon may find their labour force deported or deterred from crossing the border even legally and there being no replacement. Press freedoms may well be curtailed and libel laws can muzzle free speech. Jim Crow already creeping back may gallop onto the scene blacked up and singing Camptown Races. The shredding of protective financial sector regulations will pave the way for another epic financial crisis. And Trump's power reaches out across the globe in other ways. If he's good to his word America's symbiotic relationship with China's industrial base will be greatly diminished. He will erect barriers around one of the world's largest markets to protect US jobs. Read him poetically: he will build the wall and everyone else, not just the Mexicans, will pay. This could be end of the neoliberal world order and before everybody cheers I'd consider what comes next may well be far worse. All that US power in the hands of a irresponsible man who does business like a twelve year old school bully. Uncle Sam moves from an annoyingly pious Head Boy on the make to a fat boy dead legging first years and nicking their dinner money. And that mercantilist approach might even work better for Americans because it really is a great country.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 11, 2016)

chilango said:


> If people haven't seen this on the other thread its well worth a read....
> 
> If people haven't seen this on the other thread its well worth a read....
> 
> HOW AMERICA GOT TRUMPED



and



8ball said:


> This is good:
> 
> How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind



Ta for both of those, really interesting. I now need to go back and reread the article Butchers' posted if I can find it.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 11, 2016)

Just thinking aloud a bit - I wonder how Trump would have fared as an independent rather than on a republican ticket? What would he have got on his platform alone - 10%, 15%?  

A lot of his vote would have been just people voting on party lines, maybe holding their noses a bit. You can probably draw a line between them and the outright racist fruit loops.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 11, 2016)

In 92 Ross Perot got 19% of the vote. He was also heavily against NAFTA, the "giant sucking sound" of US jobs heading South of the border.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 11, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> There is a lot wrong with that IMO. The _left_, what the fuck does that even mean? Ridiculing safe spaces? A bastard trick. What's his political standpoint? How does he get to speak from outside of it all? Truth is he can't. I could go on but am at work so suppose I better do some.



I can't watch the video at the moment, so can't comment on it directly. That said, plenty of people with a good track record of standing up against racism, sexism and other forms of oppression feel at best ambivalent about how 'safe spaces' has been used in recent years. Sometimes the term gets used to frame guidelines, rules and practices, which are hard to argue with. Power dynamics ought to be acknowledged, anti-social or violent behaviour should be challenged, and groups should be able to organise autonomously. But cases have been reported on Urban and elsewhere over the years of 'safe spaces' being deployed to exclude people from processes and shut down debate, when the issue wasn't one of safety but personal or political differences. Sometimes it seems to get played like a trump card, which takes effectiveness from who plays it first rather than the legitimacy of their claim. I've got friends who have been on the receiving of it from their peers, when the other person clearly didn't really feel unsafe. It was about egos clashing and personal historic baggage and not at all about structural power relations, which were practically identical. There was even a case of the right-wing leadership of NUS using a safe spaces argument to shut down militant student protest.

I'm not trying to persuade you that the term has no political value, but can you see how others might have legitimate reasons to think differently based on these sorts of experiences? I'm also intrigued by what you are getting at by 'what does the left even mean?'. It's an important question that could point in a number of different directions.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 11, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> I'm not trying to persuade you that the term has no political value, but can you see how others might have legitimate reasons to think differently based on these sorts of experiences?



Of course I understand that. Misuse/abuse of anything muddies people's perception of usefulness and validity. The _generalised_ ridicule of such things though, doesn't focus on the extreme cases. In fact it doesn't differentiate at all, it simply sweeps up every group or platform and says they are wrong, over sensitive, should grow a thicker skin, don't need and shouldn't want focused time of their own. Moreover, it's exactly what the right/conservatives do all the time. It's divisive and undermines. It's no different from screaming _'political correctness gone mad'. _



> I'm also intrigued by what you are getting at by 'what does the left even mean?'. It's an important question that could point in a number of different directions.



You'll understand once you have watched the vid. He repeatedly blames the Left and positions himself outside of that.


----------



## Athos (Nov 11, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> ... The _generalised_ ridicule of such things though, doesn't focus on the extreme cases.



That's not what he did, though.  Within the context of the totality of what he was saying, it's clear to what he was referring - those sections of the left who use such concepts to dress up their failure to engage in meaningful politics.




Rutita1 said:


> ... It's divisive and undermines.


That's a bit rich; it's exactly the sort of atomised identitarianism he criticised that has divided the left.




Rutita1 said:


> He repeated blames the Left and positions himself outside of that.



The left is to blame; both the new 'left' for shifting the focus to this bullshit, and the traitional i.e. class-based left which allowed the left to be hijacked by the former.


----------



## bimble (Nov 11, 2016)

8ball said:


> This is good:
> 
> How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind


Really helpful that.
Just to put what he's saying in pictures, 1st map's  population density by county, and 2nd one's the election result by country.
  

Election maps


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Thing is like brexit this isn't an overwhelming majority for trump it was about half of those that bothered to vote voted for trump.
> 
> due to the the rather strange system the yanks have with the electoral college it looks like a massive vote for trump.



Less than half.

Popularity isn't everything: Clinton likely won the popular vote, but lost the election


----------



## likesfish (Nov 11, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> So 45%-odd of the US public are fuckwits because they were either barred or couldn't bring themselves to vote for the same shit-eating "there is no alternative" politics as has battered them for 30 years? Rather than the political consensus that alienated them?




The 3000 cunts in florida who decided to be extra special snowflakes and vote for a 3rd party are fuckwits
Given the choice between shit service as normal
 Or a leap into the dark without a bungee or parachute anybody who isnt a complete fuckwit chooses serivce as normal


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2016)

likesfish said:


> The 3000 cunts in florida who decided to be extra special snowflakes and vote for a 3rd party are fuckwits


Why?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 11, 2016)

Because they could have stopped trump.

Clinton might may be shit but trumps much worse and the stupid electoral collegel means florida is very important pissing your vote away therefore is stupid


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 11, 2016)

likesfish said:


> The 3000 cunts in florida who decided to be extra special snowflakes and vote for a 3rd party are fuckwits
> Given the choice between shit service as normal
> Or a leap into the dark without a bungee or parachute anybody who isnt a complete fuckwit chooses serivce as normal


Didn't Trump (may he die screaming) win Florida by a substantially higher vote than just 3000?


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Didn't Trump (may he die screaming) win Florida by a substantially higher vote than just 3000?


4,607,146 to 4,487,657. Though I've no idea where likes fish has got 3000 from 206,189 voted Libertarian and 64,060 Green. 

In other words, as usual, likesfish is talking complete and utter bollocks.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 11, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> 4,607,146 to 4,487,657. Though I've no idea where likes fish has got 3000 from 206,189 voted Libertarian and 64,060 Green.
> 
> In other words, as usual, likesfish is talking complete and utter bollocks.


Maybe he should lay off the fish.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 11, 2016)

4,607,146 - 4,485,657 - 206,189 + 65,060 = approx 3,000

fools


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Maybe he should lay off the fish.


Maybe so


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 11, 2016)

Whereas with Gore it came down to hanging chads. That's a pretty square win in a state where Trump mocked the establishment candidate as "little Marco" and he still got to the Senate by an even bigger margin.


----------



## Cid (Nov 11, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> You'll understand once you have watched the vid. He repeatedly blames the Left and positions himself outside of that.



No he doesn't, he explicitly places himself inside it. He distances himself from the 'left'-liberal end of things.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> *No he doesn't, he explicitly places himself inside it*. He distances himself from the 'left'-liberal end of things.



I have rewatched this morning and you are right on the highlighted point. Very early on in the rant he says 'the left did this, people like me...' I missed that first time probably because for most of the vid (after that) he uses the term 'them' or 'the left'.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 12, 2016)

post by IB off facebook
*Ian Bone*
Yesterday at 05:48 ·
There comes a time comrades when continuing down the 'middle class Lefties got all the deserve' becomes a convenient comfort blanket to hide our own failure. Why did our politics - similar in many ways -opposition to the metropolitan elite- fail to resonate?
If Marine le pen wins in France, Gerd Wilders in the Netherlands do we hear the same chorus. When Hitler won his largest vote in 1932 did all we did was go 'serves the fucking social democrats right'.

The woman in the clip below has got t right- these are fucking dangerous times. Soon a black or Hispanic person will be shot dead by the cops and Trump will support the cops and then.........

So I don't want another bystander telling me its 'only middle class students protesting'.........take another look at the woman in the clip.

Being working class has no inherent virtue in itself - its just a sociological definition -only when our class becomes class conscious - a class for itself - does it become a political force.
So lets stop absolving our own class for voting Trump and say ' you fucking idiots - look what you've done - but it aint too late - you can undo it.................but only on the streets.........or we could continue to smugly comfort ourselves that it was .............

.theres a war coming........and as the old civil rights song went. 'who's side are you on'


----------



## juice_terry (Nov 13, 2016)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> There's as much a cultural break in direction/outlook needed in the left, that while not of course unconnected to the political perspective, is IMO one that might be harder to deal with.
> 
> We need to move from an introspective, sub-cultural, low ambition, activist focused scene to a class based, massively ambitious, problem solving, organized movement.
> 
> Answers as to how to do this on a postcard please...


And it's taken 20+ years and an even further shift to the right for people to start saying what was being said by IWCA all those years ago 



.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 13, 2016)

The barrier that will hit is how few people would identify themselves as 'working class' to start with.  The term seems only to be applied to a narrow section of society now, for example it doesn't seem to include large immigrant populations which are doing a lot of the traditional working class jobs. You can't have a broad movement without solidarity, and that's been hugely eroded, quite deliberately.


----------



## bimble (Nov 13, 2016)

ska invita said:


> " When Hitler won his largest vote in 1932 did all we did was go 'serves the fucking social democrats right'."


I think history books tell us that one significant part of the reason why Hitler won almost unopposed was that the Communist Party in Germany was busy tearing into the Social Democrats,  obsessively accusing them of being 1000 times worse than an open fascist dictatorship.

Lessons of defeat: German communists and the rise of Hitler | Socialist Review


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 13, 2016)

Really it was the fault of the communists was it. 

Have you actually read that piece you linked to? The one that concludes 


> We should take the experience of the SPD before 1933 as a warning: a workers’ party that allows itself to become an administrator of the capitalist system by joining or supporting bourgeois governments—and thereby providing left wing cover to austerity—runs the danger of becoming identified with the system itself. It risks discrediting any claim to be an alternative to the status quo. In times of economic crisis like 1929 in Germany or today in Greece, however, millions begin to turn their backs on a status quo that no longer offers them a future. It is precisely then that a credible socialist alternative is needed to channel the anger of the masses in an emancipatory direction. The building of such an alternative is a task the importance of which must not be understated, particularly in the midst of the deepest economic crisis since 1929.


----------



## bimble (Nov 13, 2016)

Oh right, it _was_ all the fault of the Social Democrats then.
Just like in ska invicta's post, which was, I think, meant to be ironic.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

The things that you read on this site sometimes: hitler won almost unopposed, working class people voting for the ruling classes favoured candidate is class loyalty and not doing so is class traitory, you can accuse the kpd of helping hitler into power but to do the same of the spd is to resort to polemical crudity. Remarkable stuff.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 13, 2016)

Polemical crudity is to eschewed at all costs.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 13, 2016)

Polemical crudity is the meat cleaver of political discourse, when what is called for, is a stiletto.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Polemical crudity is to eschewed at all costs.


As is traitory, aka treachery.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 13, 2016)

bimble said:


> Oh right, it _was_ all the fault of the Social Democrats then.


I did say any such thing. But don't let that stop you with the smears, you never do.


----------



## LDC (Nov 13, 2016)

juice_terry said:


> And it's taken 20+ years and an even further shift to the right for people to start saying what was being said by IWCA all those years ago.



Amongst others. But yes, not a new thing to observe. Are you/have you been involved in the IWCA? Be interested to chat if so.


----------



## chilango (Nov 13, 2016)

...again, it might be worth people thinking about the practical implications of what they're arguing for here (and the various other threads). 

It happened because X (well, X,Y,Z and a bunch of others really) so that means we need to do A and I personally am going to do B.

So, does that mean doing something differently or carrying on as normal?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

juice_terry said:


> And it's taken 20+ years and an even further shift to the right for people to start saying what was being said by IWCA all those years ago
> 
> 
> 
> .


If only that were the case. What i see is basically the same people putting that sort of perspective across against a now even further entrenched basket of identity politics derived positions that add up to a sort of common sense idea of what politics is - one that governs much political discourse across the right and the left (and here i don't mean parliament etc i mean ordinary people who any sort of escape has to come from and current political activists) and that therefore governs what peoples expectations of politics are and in turn how they organise politically (or are put off from doing so). I don't see any wider acceptance of the points put over the last 20 years - even now, when the meat of the analysis and the predictions based on it have been borne out.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

Little snippet here - don't worry, don't have to watch whole thing, i've kindly linked to the relevant bit - simply not an option to engage


----------



## bimble (Nov 13, 2016)

'lets say that trump voters were one third sexists one third racists and one third genuinely economically disturbed' he says, and then that 'the only thing that's malleable to public policy is the economic part'.
Maybe that's true if public policy simply means the actions of the State. But what about everyone else, who is not the government: Surely this is not a good time for feminists and anti-racists to be told to pipe down, or even told that they are a big part of the problem, with their alienating identity politics etc.
There has to be a way for these concerns to not be mutually exclusive and locked in a zero sum game type fight.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

Why do you have to do this on every post? Why suggest that the clip above suggests "feminists and anti-racists to be told to pipe down..."? It seems nearly every post from you contains one of these. It's just so pointless - and frustrating for those it's aimed at.

edit: and that's before even touching on the assumption that feminists and anti-racists are fans of identity politics, or the reciprocal formulation that those who oppose identity politics reject feminism and anti-racism.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 13, 2016)

bimble said:


> 'lets say that trump voters were one third sexists one third racists and one third genuinely economically disturbed' he says, and then that 'the only thing that's malleable to public policy is the economic part'.
> Maybe that's true if public policy simply means the actions of the State. But what about everyone else, who is not the government: Surely this is not a good time for feminists and anti-racists to be told to pipe down, or even told that they are a big part of the problem, with their alienating identity politics etc.
> There has to be a way for these concerns to not be mutually exclusive and locked in a zero sum game type fight.



There was a major presidential candidate which fused class-inflected campaigning with explicit anti-racist, anti-sexist policies. The inevitable one who just lost to the serial rapist racist with a five second attention span ensured that he couldn't win.


----------



## gosub (Nov 13, 2016)

bimble said:


> Really helpful that.
> Just to put what he's saying in pictures, 1st map's  population density by county, and 2nd one's the election result by country.
> View attachment 95360 View attachment 95362
> 
> Election maps



So what the Democrats needed was a candidate that understood farming


----------



## Athos (Nov 13, 2016)

bimble said:


> 'lets say that trump voters were one third sexists one third racists and one third genuinely economically disturbed' he says, and then that 'the only thing that's malleable to public policy is the economic part'.
> Maybe that's true if public policy simply means the actions of the State. But what about everyone else, who is not the government: Surely this is not a good time for feminists and anti-racists to be told to pipe down, or even told that they are a big part of the problem, with their alienating identity politics etc.
> There has to be a way for these concerns to not be mutually exclusive and locked in a zero sum game type fight.



How can you get so many things wrong in one post? !


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 13, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Don't forget how the those of us who didn't like either candidate but preferred Hilary over sexual predator Trump will be criticised as liberals and therefore; stupid.
> 
> Anyway; the people have spoken. We must respect the result. All hail the rise of the right.



Perhaps the rise of the right is due to the failure of the left?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 13, 2016)

8ball said:


> How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind



Which half?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2016)

Succinct.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 13, 2016)

lol


----------



## J Ed (Nov 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Succinct.




Phil Greaves has a lot of, uhh... novel ideas, but he is right here. Funnily enough Corbyn's account follows his account on twitter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2016)

bimble said:


> 'lets say that trump voters were one third sexists one third racists and one third genuinely economically disturbed' he says, and then that 'the only thing that's malleable to public policy is the economic part'.
> Maybe that's true if public policy simply means the actions of the State. But what about everyone else, who is not the government: Surely this is not a good time for feminists and anti-racists to be told to pipe down, or even told that they are a big part of the problem, with their alienating identity politics etc.
> There has to be a way for these concerns to not be mutually exclusive and locked in a zero sum game type fight.


I would have thought many racists sexist too, and quite possibly also "economically disturbed". so don't believe your division into separate categories holds water


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> How can you get so many things wrong in one post? !


And without obvious effort


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2016)

Plenty of "rust, race and ignorance" maps in the Sunday's; this from the Observer...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 13, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> A significant proportion of Trump's vote was explicitly and deliberately racist and misogynistic. A spectrum of voters, from Nazi-fascist Hitler worshippers to much of the mainstream religious right, clearly fits this bill. Beyond these constituencies many others clearly responded favourably, or at least failed to be put off, by his racist, anti-immigrant campaign and multiple credible allegations of a history of sexual violence, making it hard to argue that any vote for Trump wasn't structurally racist and sexist. But we are also confronted with exit polls that seem to show that the *swing toward Trump* was made up of those on low incomes including union organised Democratic Party affiliates. It even seems to have been larger among voters from ethnic groups other than white (only up +1% on a lower white turnout). No doubt these figures need to be interpreted carefully even if they are accurate, but they also suggest the need to reflect on how Trump was allowed to win. How do we get beyond a situation where defending women's reproductive freedom and opposing white supremacy means voting for a corrupt establishment candidate who cleaves to a broken and exploitative economic model, leaving the field open for the Tories and Trump to offer an alternative to a segment of the electorate who are rightly disillusioned with the status quo?



Just like Bill Clinton then.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 13, 2016)

I like how the 'uneducated working class' is being blamed for all this shit.

demonisation at it's finest.

those poor thick people, they did it.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> I like how the 'uneducated working class' is being blamed for all this shit.
> 
> demonisation at it's finest.
> 
> those poor thick people, they did it.


Right, but there is nothing inherently demonising in attempting to unravel, analyse and understand the demographics persuaded to cast their vote for the demagogue.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 13, 2016)

uh huh. if you like.

think it's more to do with people not wanting to be told wtf to do all the time by some snotty neoliberal.


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2016)

> World in crisis or back to normal soon? I think I know... | Nick Cohen
> 
> You can only argue against committed supporters of Trump. If they believe all Mexicans are rapists and Muslims terrorists, you cannot compromise without betraying your principles. Fair enough. But before you become self-righteous you must accept that the dominant faction on the western left uses language just as suggestive of collective punishment when they talk about their own white working class. Imagine how it must feel for a worker in Bruce Springsteen’s Youngstown to hear college-educated liberals condemn “white privilege” when he has a shit job and a miserable life. Or Google the number of times “straight white males” are denounced by public-school educated women in the liberal media and think how that sounds to an ex-miner coughing his guts up in a Yorkshire council flat.
> 
> ...





Nick Cohen seems to be starting to get it, well, bits of it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 13, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Perhaps the rise of the right is due to the failure of the left?



Or perhaps it's due to the failure of humankind?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> uh huh. if you like.
> 
> think it's more to do with people not wanting to be told wtf to do all the time by some snotty neoliberal.


More than what?


----------



## Ho Chi Ming (Nov 13, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Or perhaps it's due to the failure of humankind?



To do what?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 13, 2016)

Ho Chi Ming said:


> To do what?



To prevent the rise of the right/to prevent the rise of the left/to get along in harmony/not to get along in harmony?

I dunno. Hard to know what the correct answer is these days!


----------



## J Ed (Nov 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> Nick Cohen seems to be starting to get it, well, bits of it.



I suppose that the, interestingly unmentioned, corollary of this is that like the working-class the middle-class professionals mentioned also do not ever come into contact with the 1% which is why we get this stream of invective aimed at working-class people following Brexit and Donald Trump's victory.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> More than what?




more than people voting for whoever they think is more racist.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 13, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I dunno. Hard to know what the correct answer is these days!




only cus some whiny neoliberal shit will scream at you for whatever you say...


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 13, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> only cus some whiny neoliberal shit will scream at you for whatever you say...



I've given up screaming. It's just a silent sigh of despair.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 13, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I've given up screaming. It's just a silent sigh of despair.



silenced. as it should be.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> more than people voting for whoever they think is more racist.


Maybe for some, but for some not...that's the point of the post mortem stuff, isn't it?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 13, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> silenced. as it should be.



It's true. This is not a time for blame. It is a time for humble acceptance.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Maybe for some, but for some not...that's the point of the post mortem stuff, isn't it?



you cant know why people voted, only idly speculate on things that fit your idea, it's pretty useless cus it's just a made up list of possible reasons someone could have voted the way they did. it's not treating people as individuals. it's pretty basic to think that all white rich people believe the same shit as it is to say every poor black person believes the same shit. one might call that an 'isim'.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 13, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> It's true. This is not a time for blame. It is a time for humble acceptance.




you forgot ' and knowing your place' on the end of that


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> silenced. as it should be.


Smothered, he should be.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Smothered, he should be.




in what? butter? brexit marmite?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 13, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> you forgot ' and knowing your place' on the end of that



That's a point. I've never known my place. But I'm willing to learn!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> To prevent the rise of the right/to prevent the rise of the left/to get along in harmony/not to get along in harmony?
> 
> I dunno. Hard to know what the correct answer is these days!


That's not a helpful analysis, though is it? '<shrug> human nature innit?'


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 13, 2016)

I really have to go out.... back in a couple days to this clusterfuck.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> in what? butter? brexit marmite?


Castor oil.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> you cant know why people voted, only idly speculate on things that fit your idea, it's pretty useless cus it's just a made up list of possible reasons someone could have voted the way they did. it's not treating people as individuals. it's pretty basic to think that all white rich people believe the same shit as it is to say every poor black person believes the same shit. one might call that an 'isim'.


I don't think that political scientists ever pretend that they can offer anything other than generalisations based upon samples.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> That's not a helpful analysis, though is it? '<shrug> human nature innit?'


It's not an analysis  - it's just another attack on other posters.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 13, 2016)

generalisations are ridiculous when it comes to something like 'reasons people voted'


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> That's not a helpful analysis, though is it? '<shrug> human nature innit?'



Yes/no/maybe


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Yes/no/maybe


Fucksake


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Fucksake



I can agree with that sentiment.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I can agree with that sentiment.


Father Ted Tony Lynch Shut Up - YouTube


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2016)

Dougald Hine's latest is great, if you want helpful analysis. Certainly not much point in carrying on with this tedious back and forth.

When the maps run out – Redrawing The Maps


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 13, 2016)

On 3QD What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class


> ...
> One little-known element of that gap is that the white working class (WWC) resents professionals but admires the rich. Class migrants (white-collar professionals born to blue-collar families) report that “professional people were generally suspect” and that managers are college kids “who don’t know shit about how to do anything but are full of ideas about how I have to do my job,” said Alfred Lubrano in _Limbo_. Barbara Ehrenreich recalled in 1990 that her blue-collar dad “could not say the word _doctor_ without the virtual prefix _quack_. Lawyers were _shysters_…and professors were without exception _phonies_.” Annette Lareau found tremendous resentment against teachers, who were perceived as condescending and unhelpful.
> 
> Michèle Lamont, in _The Dignity of Working Men,_ also found resentment of professionals — but not of the rich. “_ can’t knock anyone for succeeding,” a laborer told her. “There’s a lot of people out there who are wealthy and I’m sure they worked darned hard for every cent they have,” chimed in a receiving clerk. Why the difference? For one thing, most blue-collar workers have little direct contact with the rich outside of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But professionals order them around every day. The dream is not to become upper-middle-class, with its different food, family, and friendship patterns; the dream is to live in your own class milieu, where you feel comfortable — just with more money. “The main thing is to be independent and give your own orders and not have to take them from anybody else,” a machine operator told Lamont. Owning one’s own business — that’s the goal. That’s another part of Trump’s appeal.
> ..._


A sort of mutant Blue Collar Septic version of the Corinthian Spirit perhaps: pointy headed aspiration bad, hard work and lots of luck good. Well perhaps that's the only way the American Dream can be remotely credible.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It's not an analysis  - it's just another attack on other posters.



Yes well even if it was, it's not like he doesn't get attacked in the odd post? So you'd feel like he could occasionally have a go back without comment. 

One thing i don't understand on urban is the treatment of people like treelover who posts some really good links and bimble who is clearly also interested in how we get out of the shit we're in. 

They, like I, don't necessarily know the correct phrasings of questions but you and Pickers and people have clearly been studying this shit for years so it's not unsurprising that you can run rings round us with your clever Socratic arguments. 

The responses to Trump by 'liberal' americans seem quite reasonable to me.  They're trying to make sense of what happened. I can't actually see some of the comments being criticized on here as much different from how we talked about the tories after the election. 

If there's an alternative view then fine lets do it with discussion rather than dismissive comments and abuse.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> Dougald Hine's latest is great, if you want helpful analysis. Certainly not much point in carrying on with this tedious back and forth.
> 
> When the maps run out – Redrawing The Maps



Thanks for posting this. It is a very smart piece.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Plenty of "rust, race and ignorance" maps in the Sunday's; this from the Observer...


Extra votes for those with college degrees!


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Thanks for posting this. It is a very smart piece.


He generally has an illuminating take on this kind of stuff.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 13, 2016)

In my experience privileged people are often very stupid, but they don't like it when less privileged people call them stupid, they call it breach of the peace, public nuicance, libel, etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Yes well even if it was, it's not like he doesn't get attacked in the odd post? So you'd feel like he could occasionally have a go back without comment.
> 
> One thing i don't understand on urban is the treatment of people like treelover who posts some really good links and bimble who is clearly also interested in how we get out of the shit we're in.
> 
> ...


The odd go? That's exactly what he gets. More than the odd go. He posted this whilst threatening to kill himself i posted ever again.

If you want to bring others in then do so. It's well out of order to do so on the back of a long running problem to attack others. 

Fucking passive aggressive lovely liberals.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The odd go? That's exactly what he gets. More than the odd go. He posted this whilst threatening to kill himself i posted ever again.s.


Problem is, the stuff you're responding to here is nothing like that. Pretty hard to read the post you refer to as an attack on other posters. In fact, I think it's just plain wrong to do so. And you're shitstirring by linking to that.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 13, 2016)

I don't understand this obsession some posters have with some other posters. All most of us are to each other are just words on a forum. I just post any shit I feel contributes to the thread & laugh at my detractors. I hold no grudges & have nobody on ignore ever.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Nov 13, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I don't understand this obsession some posters have with some other posters. All most of us are to each other are just words on a forum. I just post any shit I feel contributes to the thread & laugh at my detractors. I hold no grudges & have nobody on ignore ever.


I like everybody on here, most of all my detractors.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem is, the stuff you're responding to here is nothing like that. Pretty hard to read the post you refer to as an attack on other posters. In fact, I think it's just plain wrong to do so. And you're shitstirring by linking to that.


It not being that is nothing like that is the attack ffs. You are such a dozy cunt it's unbelievable.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 13, 2016)

So are you ba. Nothing personal mind.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 13, 2016)

Wait, what? Are people calling each other stupid on this thread? Unbelievable.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 13, 2016)

The thread title is certainly not wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Wait, what? Are people calling each other stupid on this thread? Unbelievable.


In what way?


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> Dougald Hine's latest is great, if you want helpful analysis. Certainly not much point in carrying on with this tedious back and forth.
> 
> When the maps run out – Redrawing The Maps




Dougald wanted everyone to leave the cities and go back to pre-civilisation, even ran a festival based on it.


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> Dougald wanted everyone to leave the cities and go back to pre-civilisation, even ran a festival based on it.


I didn't know about that - some of his writing does get too hippy for my tastes though, so I'm not particularly surprised. This is a great piece regardless. I'll take insight where I can get it.


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> On 3QD What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class
> A sort of mutant Blue Collar Septic version of the Corinthian Spirit perhaps: pointy headed aspiration bad, hard work and lots of luck good. Well perhaps that's the only way the American Dream can be remotely credible.




Some of this wouldn't be amiss in the late 19th C when the concerned philanthropists' would go exploring and then recording in the East end, etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> Some of this wouldn't be amiss in the late 19th C when the concerned philanthropists' would go exploring and then recording in the East end, etc.


Minus the -anthropy bit. Much of the liberal response - and liberal goggles - mirrors the hard IQ/race realist types far right types. Certain people in certain situtations...


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 13, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I don't understand this obsession some posters have with some other posters. All most of us are to each other are just words on a forum. I just post any shit I feel contributes to the thread & laugh at my detractors. I hold no grudges & have nobody on ignore ever.


You can't see why being called an apologist for sexual assault and/or racism might not create some bad feeling?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> Some of this wouldn't be amiss in the late 19th C when the concerned philanthropists' would go exploring and then recording in the East end, etc.



Speaking of anthropology, I had no idea people ate blood soup.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 13, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> You can't see why being called an apologist for sexual assault and/or racism might not create some bad feeling?


Just tell'em to fuck off. Works for me.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Extra votes for those with college degrees!


John Stuart Mill's _plural voting _system; liberals, eh?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 13, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Extra votes for those with college degrees!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

alt-right and liberal left increasingly secretly the same. Just without that horrible race stuff.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 13, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Just tell'em to fuck off. Works for me.


Which is pretty much what BA was doing and got criticised for.


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2016)

For me and I know you will disagree, the left right across the western world has largely abandoned the poor, the unemployed, etc for identity politics, plus the next big thing, epitomised by the SWP bandwagon jumping, but which has spread to the liberal left, it has been very interesting to see tens of thousands of the latter going to see I Daniel Blake and saying, "we didn't know it was this bad", well, to a point, but they largely didn't attend the meetings that were hosted around welfare, etc at the time. Some of us hosted a meeting on the Crisis In Social Care this weekend, a very topical issues, there were a number of service users, carers, etc, but a total absence of the sort of people, activists, etc who attend in large numbers events on refugees, EDl protests, migrants, anti-war, Syria, Climate Change,(add your own hot button issue)etc. This is what one attendee wrote.

"
I went to the 'Sheffield Adult Social Care in Crisis' meeting this afternoon. Hearing people speak, it quickly became clear that the session was aptly titled as the current system is undergoing a crisis which has left people without the care they need.

Many of us have been moved by the story of Daniel Blake and it's fair to say that service users in the meeting today had just as upsetting and troubling stories to tell. Severely ill and disabled people in Sheffield are trying to navigate a confusing and uncaring bureaucracy that has left many without adequate care or, in some cases, no care at all.

Social care is an important aspect of the current social security regime that we should not overlook. I would strongly encourage Momentum members to read up in this issue and, when possible, attend meetings like the one today. It's no exaggeration to say that the provision of adult social care is an issue of life and death.

A report of the meeting will be released which will outline the issues raised today."


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2016)

Have you read the latest IWCA missive treelover ? They give a lot of background on the abandonment you speak of.

IWCA - Independent Working Class Association - national website

BTW, I think you'd probably find your posts better received if you didn't a) assume everyone is going to disagree with you before you've even posted, and b) managed to avoid referencing the SWP, except in posts where they have some actual relevance.


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 13, 2016)

The IWCA is the only org I have taken seriously over the years.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 13, 2016)

Clinton failed to get enough of her vote out. Thats on her and her team.
A (relative) smaller number of voters in key states switched to trump. There are good, long standing reasons for a left wing attack the Democrat machine on this as they have failed to do enough for the workers in those areas.
Trump positively wallowed in racist and misogynist language and yet people voted for him, most, virtually all were likely long standing, regular Republican voters and a few others would have been Obama voters who switched in part over his immigration message.

Here are the closest races that went Trump.
Michigan, 0.27%
Obama 2012...  Clinton 16
2,564,569 ...	 2,264,807   
Romney ...  Trump
2,115,256 ...	  2,277,914

Wisconsin, 0.93%
Obama	...		Clinton
1,620,985  ...	1,383,926
Romney ...		 Trump
1,407,966   ...	1,411,432

Pennsylvania, 1.24%
Obama   ...		 Clinton
2,990,274  ...   2,817,409
Romney ...		 Trump
2,890,633   ...  2,680,434

Florida, 1.27%
Obama	 ...	   Clinton
4,237,756  ...	   4,487,657
Romney ...		 Trump
4,163,447   ...	 4,607,146

With the exception of Florida all are states where Clinton polled worse than Obama.
Trump fell from Romney's numbers in Pennsylvania.

The actual "white working class rage" going over to Trump is a really small part of the story.
Despondent working class not being bothered by Clinton you can have.
But the biggest story is the number of Republicans who voted against their long standing beliefs in free trade and pro business in favour of a message of demonising Muslims, misogyny and anti-immigration.

Republicans have ditched their economics going back to Reagan. Small government? Trump promises them huge government spending. Low regulation, Trump promises them to clamp down on the banks (he wont), free enterprise he promises them Smoot Hawley. But they go for him.

The whole post trump narrative is defined as "Democrats say rude things about racists". Or the "forgotten white working class". Not the Republicans ditching their core economic message for a Nativist big state candidate.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> Some of this wouldn't be amiss in the late 19th C when the concerned philanthropists' would go exploring and then recording in the East end, etc.


While they often came up with wildly distorted romantic idea of working class attitudes that patronised the plebs as noble savages to be improved. And that obviously that has not changed much for some despite the constant intrusion of harsher crooked timber realities battering their intellectual 21st century equivalents around the head when things come to a vote.

Go drink in blue collar US bars and you will often find a deep distrust educated folk. Moving up the food chain I know a few Republican Septics with PHDs selectively in denial of the scientific worldview in preference for partisan ideology. Far from stupid but convinced and frankly facts don't matter much to their opponents either. What I find distressing is they are pretty close to being entirely walled off from equally haughty perhaps more out of touch liberals in US which leaves no room for sense to prevail. You can't mention politics at work and most folk are staring into their cell for social media confirmation when briefly at leisure. At some point you have to get off your high horse and engage.


----------



## bendeus (Nov 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> Dougald wanted everyone to leave the cities and go back to pre-civilisation, even ran a festival based on it.



Dougald is a past simple tense verb, surely?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

**


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

**


----------



## bendeus (Nov 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You're not a big picture poster are you?


Hey, why not take another swig and post another swipe, you unpleasant cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

I wrote two posts above to bendeus - i got the wrong end of the stick - i shouldn't have binned them. I did. I am sorry for being a twat bendeus.

edit: it was also cowardice on my part to edit out the posts.


----------



## bendeus (Nov 13, 2016)

bendeus said:


> Hey, why not take another swig and post another swipe, you unpleasant cunt.



Deleted? Why's that, then?


----------



## bendeus (Nov 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I wrote two posts above to bendeus - i got the wrong end of the stick - i shouldn't have binned them. I did. I am sorry for being a twat bendeus.
> 
> edit: it was also cowardice on my part to edit out the posts.


Errr, that's fine, BA, and I appreciate the apology, though TBH I didn't think that was your MO.

As an aside I'll say this. I tend to keep my opinions to myself a lot on P&P, basically because I can't match the likes of you and Pickmans intellectually and in terms of breadth of knowledge, and I fear I'll write something that'll end up with me fighting a losing battle against superior opposition. What I _will _say, though, is that I read here all the time, increase my understanding of the world, broaden and hone my opinions and get better at understanding what the fuck is going on. People like you help that a lot, but I wish you wouldn't always be so bloody aggro about sharing the knowledge you have because it's valuable.

I don't _just _do rugby union rules, you know


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 14, 2016)

I think posters are cutting posters that seem to get off on points scoring & belittling other posters too much slack. Their mischief is off topic & spoils threads. It's the nature of urban that these posters exist. If it bothered me I would not post on here. Plenty of us might be put off posting by these posters not because we are bothered by them but because we simply cannot be arsed to argue with them when all we want to do is make a post that we see as relevant to the thread. As pointed out earlier the way forward on urban imo is just laugh at them & carry on posting anything you see as relevant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> For me and I know you will disagree, the left right across the western world has largely abandoned the poor, the unemployed, etc for identity politics, plus the next big thing, epitomised by the SWP bandwagon jumping, but which has spread to the liberal left, it has been very interesting to see tens of thousands of the latter going to see I Daniel Blake and saying, "we didn't know it was this bad", well, to a point, but they largely didn't attend the meetings that were hosted around welfare, etc at the time. Some of us hosted a meeting on the Crisis In Social Care this weekend, a very topical issues, there were a number of service users, carers, etc, but a total absence of the sort of people, activists, etc who attend in large numbers events on refugees, EDl protests, migrants, anti-war, Syria, Climate Change,(add your own hot button issue)etc. This is what one attendee wrote.
> 
> "
> I went to the 'Sheffield Adult Social Care in Crisis' meeting this afternoon. Hearing people speak, it quickly became clear that the session was aptly titled as the current system is undergoing a crisis which has left people without the care they need.
> ...


Out of curiosity could you describe how and where these meetings were publicised?


----------



## chilango (Nov 14, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I think posters are cutting posters that seem to get off on points scoring & belittling other posters too much slack. Their mischief is off topic & spoils threads. It's the nature of urban that these posters exist. If it bothered me I would not post on here. Plenty of us might be put off posting by these posters not because we are bothered by them but because we simply cannot be arsed to argue with them when all we want to do is make a post that we see as relevant to the thread. As pointed out earlier the way forward on urban imo is just laugh at them & carry on posting anything you see as relevant.



I disagree.

Aside from pedantry here and there, I don't  see much in the way of "point scoring".

I see posters trying to discuss and posted getting frustrated by the repetition of responses/opinions etc. that show little interest in moving the discussion on towards something useful.

Sometimes, some posters can be a little blunt, even aggressive perhaps, in expressing their frustration. 

But it's not point scoring.

I tell you what ruins threads, it's people doing my sticking their fingers in their ears and ding this:



> laugh at them & carry on posting anything you see as relevant



If these discussions are to be meaningful then we need to read what each other says, consider whether there's any "evidence" to support what we're arguing and what others are arguing and be willing to consider that our opinions are just that unless they're backed up with "stuff". Repeating ill informed opinions doesn't make them any more correct.

...but anyway. I'll shut up now


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 14, 2016)

I was told today that it's not worth it; crying out against the new status quo. We just have to accept. Yes, it was pub anecdotage but this might be the way forward.

That's what some say. In the real world. But what is the real world? Here? There?

I give up.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 14, 2016)

chilango said:


> ...again, it might be worth people thinking about the practical implications of what they're arguing for here (and the various other threads).
> 
> It happened because X (well, X,Y,Z and a bunch of others really) so that means we need to do A and I personally am going to do B.
> 
> So, does that mean doing something differently or carrying on as normal?


I think one thing it means is that I cannot work with the liberal left. After the EU referendum BA posted this



> It's, in fact, become increasingly clear that any substantial social change to the benefit of the working classes across europe and wider is going to have to carried out _against the progressives._ Not the sort of civil rights stuff that capitalism can deal with and recuperate, the nice stuff, i mean the real social relation challenging stuff.



This separation has become even starker. You've people on the other thread seriously proclaiming the Trump is a fascist and may block elections in 2020. It's not just that I consider such analysis as crazy as anything Alex Jones comes out with it's also that I think their 'strategy' of shouting fascist, of writing off whole swathes of people as unconvertible racists, of allying  with the LibDems (or equivalent), of lesser evilism is just useless I think it's actually counter-productive. For me these are some of the reasons for the rise of the hard-right.


----------



## bendeus (Nov 15, 2016)

I guess the point is down to what this particular corner of the boards are for. If it's about the people with the most persuasive (and for me this reads dominant) voices defining and perpetuating the tone, so be it; it's the paradigm I'm used to and more or less happily fit in to. 

I kind of think that we probably have more common cause than the spats and bunfights would indicate and that in the face of some serious right wing resurgence it would be better for us to find that common cause rather than to kick off with each other. People come to politics in different ways and I know that the way my brain is wired leads me to fail at internet arguments and to take internet insults very personally; I can't just ride above it as SaskiaJayne suggests. Without trying to sound like a hippy I think there are some amazing teachers on these threads; what I don't understand is why it always seems to descend into a ruck, and why opinions expressed by people who don't 'know better' get so battered. If you have the luxury of superior knowledge isn't it better to win people to your cause by means other than a boot to the nuts?

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, btw, it's just a broad observation.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 15, 2016)

bendeus said:


> I kind of think that we probably have more common cause than the spats and bunfights would indicate and that in the face of some serious right wing resurgence it would be better for us to find that common cause rather than to kick off with each other.


But how?

How can I make a common cause with people that argue for a "anyone but Trump/UKIP/etc" vote when I don't just see such a tactic as useless but _counter-productive_? I believe, rightly or wrongly, that this type of tactic is fuelling the rise of the hard right others (however much I believe their intentions to be good) argue for such a tactic. It's all very well saying there's a common cause but the politics are completely at odds with each other!


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 15, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Little snippet here - don't worry, don't have to watch whole thing, i've kindly linked to the relevant bit - simply not an option to engage




Who is saying 'don't engage'?


redsquirrel said:


> But how?
> 
> How can I make a common cause with people that argue for a "anyone but Trump/UKIP/etc" vote when I don't just see such a tactic as useless but _counter-productive_? I believe, rightly or wrongly, that this type of tactic is fuelling the rise of the hard right others (however much I believe their intentions to be good) argue for such a tactic. It's all very well saying there's a common cause but the politics are completely at odds with each other?



There are so many people, only a small proportion of whom are comfortable elites, who feel this way, prompted by values, like anti-racism which we share, that seems as ridiculous to abandon them as it does the cohort of people, left behind, who vote to the right.

It's an obsession on this board and may be correct in terms of revolutionary politics, but not for electoral politics. That doesn't mean notions like snobbery can't be challenged, but if people vote for the Klan endorsed candidate it's going to be pointed out, just as you can't avoid nice Mr Obama's cynical foreign policy. Think the conversation needs to move on.


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2016)

I've been guilty of all the things redsquirrel talks about, lesser-evilism, anything but Trump etc. I do get that this is diametrically opposed to a vision of revolutionary far reaching long term change, that it offers no real answer and even perpetuates the problem. But in the absence of any sign (that I'm aware of) that there exists even the seeds of a viable _popular_ alternative to the rise of the hard right - which terrifies me, properly frightens me in a way that is probably not quite rational more emotional - I just feel helpless tbh.
What makes me sad on top of that is how often (on here) things descend into personal attacks or grudges held for years, might be an inevitable part of the culture of a small message board like this I don't know but it's just so pointless and unproductive.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 15, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> There are so many people, only a small proportion of whom are comfortable elites, who feel this way, prompted by values, like anti-racism which we share, that seems as ridiculous to abandon them as it does the cohort of people, left behind, who vote to the right.
> 
> It's an obsession on this board and may be correct in terms of revolutionary politics, but not for electoral politics. That doesn't mean notions like snobbery can't be challenged, but if people vote for the Klan endorsed candidate it's going to be pointed out, just as you can't avoid nice Mr Obama's cynical foreign policy. Think the conversation needs to move on.


I'm sorry but I've no idea what you are trying to say here. Feel what way? What's an obsession? You say the conversation needs to move on but you've completed ignored the questions I posed. 

I'm not talking about differences in aims or ideology (though those exist and IMO can't simply be papered over) for the moment I'm simply concentrating on tactics. How do groups with completely contradictory tactics make common cause?


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

bendeus said:


> I guess the point is down to what this particular corner of the boards are for. If it's about the people with the most persuasive (and for me this reads dominant) voices defining and perpetuating the tone, so be it; it's the paradigm I'm used to and more or less happily fit in to.
> 
> I kind of think that we probably have more common cause than the spats and bunfights would indicate and that in the face of some serious right wing resurgence it would be better for us to find that common cause rather than to kick off with each other. People come to politics in different ways and I know that the way my brain is wired leads me to fail at internet arguments and to take internet insults very personally; I can't just ride above it as SaskiaJayne suggests. Without trying to sound like a hippy I think there are some amazing teachers on these threads; what I don't understand is why it always seems to descend into a ruck, and why opinions expressed by people who don't 'know better' get so battered. If you have the luxury of superior knowledge isn't it better to win people to your cause by means other than a boot to the nuts?
> 
> This isn't directed at anyone in particular, btw, it's just a broad observation.



How and why are some voices more persuasive than others though?

I don't think it can be dismissed as simply "superior knowledge ". A frequent complaint from people unable to support their opinions in the face of argument is that, coupled with some sort of of insinuation about heavy political tomes.

But how often do we actually see obscure political theory chucked in to swing an argument? Very rarely IME.

Certainly some posters are more considered in their use of sources (articles, news reports etc) that they use than others. But...

...but the key thing here for me is the years and years and years of collective accumulated experience.

Experience doesn't necessarily validate or invalidate any given opinion but when, taking the current arguments about Trump/Le Pen/Brexit etc. as an example when posters have actually already been through the arguments before ("lesser evilism"/"just thick racists" vs. the BNP for example) and seen how spectacularly it failed in real life, then that's  your "superior knowledge" for you.

Sometimes people _do_ just "know better".

It's an amazing resource we have here, though fading somewhat, and we'd be fools to pay no heed to it.

But even then, these arguments need challenging. What was right 20 years ago isn't automatically going to be right now.

But the challenge needs to be rigorous, substantiated, based on something. Otherwise it's merely an opinion.

Nothing wrong with opinions of course, but they're not going to carry as much weight as experience.

There are some posters who have a problem with that. That feel that that their (passionately held) opinions should carry as much weight as somebody else's direct experience. Understandably when those opinions are based on genuine belief and genuine commitment.

There are also a few posters who simply see this place as a an extension of the debating society. Their arguments are devoid of either experience or commitment and they poison many discussions on here. But they are are few and easily spotted.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> I've been guilty of all the things redsquirrel talks about, lesser-evilism, anything but Trump etc. I do get that this is diametrically opposed to a vision of revolutionary far reaching long term change, that it offers no real answer and even perpetuates the problem. But in the absence of any sign (that I'm aware of) that there exists even the seeds of a viable _popular_ alternative to the rise of the hard right - which terrifies me, properly frightens me in a way that is probably not quite rational more emotional - I just feel helpless tbh.
> What makes me sad on top of that is how often (on here) things descend into personal attacks or grudges held for years, might be an inevitable part of the culture of a small message board like this I don't know but it's just so pointless and unproductive.



I think what's frustrating (for me at least) is that we've been here before.

Some of have seen the application of "lesser evilism" before. And seen it fail. Seen it make things worse.

The stakes are higher now.

Can we afford to - willfully - repeat these mistakes?

I do also keep asking what people are going to "do" with the conclusions they are drawing. 

There's deafening silence in that regard.

Which suggests to me that further consideration is necessary.


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2016)

That thread about 'what would a populism of the left look like' it hasn't gone very far yet but that's what someone like me wants to hear about, and maybe also the half of americans who stayed home on election day. There needs to be something positive and viable soon, against all the odds, or the Trumps will just fill the vacuum.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 15, 2016)

For most of the history of this site, the common battle - a mostly losing battle - has been against government and authority. Now that battlefield is markedly different in that it also involves large swathes of the electorate, not necessarily in direct opposition but by no means aligned either. Nor universally aligned to a single thing. This is not only a departure from the pattern but a different kind of defeat. Whose defeat it is and who's to blame is up for debate but at least writ this large it's a new problem that needs a response.

So far part of that response seems to be 'kick each other to death'.

You can give the commentariat their richly deserved beating free of charge, but outside of that you're going to run into ordinary people who abhor what is happening as an end result - with or without the exact right flavour of political thought behind it and responses from it. Meeting the clueless liberal version, what are you going to do? Deny their fears and lived experiences, smash them to bits with hardcore politics? If so, isn't that what you're trying to avoid with the other half of the racist-electing public you've decided to find empathy for?

The random public aren't in a position to end the mechanics of 'lesser evilism'. For them it's a binary choice of output: evil or lesser evil. It shouldn't be a great surprise or insult if they fervently support the latter.


----------



## Manter (Nov 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> Snip//
> I do also keep asking what people are going to "do" with the conclusions they are drawing.
> 
> There's deafening silence in that regard.
> ...



What should we be doing, do you think?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> I've been guilty of all the things redsquirrel talks about, lesser-evilism, anything but Trump etc. I do get that this is diametrically opposed to a vision of revolutionary far reaching long term change, that it offers no real answer and even perpetuates the problem. But in the absence of any sign (that I'm aware of) that there exists even the seeds of a viable _popular_ alternative to the rise of the hard right - which terrifies me, properly frightens me in a way that is probably not quite rational more emotional - I just feel helpless tbh.
> What makes me sad on top of that is how often (on here) things descend into personal attacks or grudges held for years, might be an inevitable part of the culture of a small message board like this I don't know but it's just so pointless and unproductive.


Heaven forfend someone have to do some work to bring into being an alternative to the 'hard right'


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2016)

mauvais said:


> For most of the history of this site, the common battle - a mostly losing battle - has been against government and authority. Now that battlefield is markedly different in that it also involves large swathes of the electorate, not necessarily in direct opposition but by no means aligned either. Nor universally aligned to a single thing. This is not only a departure from the pattern but a different kind of defeat. Whose defeat it is and who's to blame is up for debate but at least writ this large it's a new problem that needs a response.
> 
> So far part of that response seems to be 'kick each other to death'.
> 
> ...


The road to hell is paved with lesser evil intentions


----------



## Jurrihahay (Nov 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I give up.


Best news I've heard in a while.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

Manter said:


> What should we be doing, do you think?



I've posted somewhere on one the threads...

...but I don't have some great blueprint, I do think we need to be going back to the basics though and trying to build right from the bottom.

We need to rebuild networks of solidarity and mutual aid in the community, in the work place, and start to "do" the alternative to both neo-liberalism and populist reaction.

Given how (for many of us) fragmented our workplaces and communities are, the first steps are going to be small. Restoring some sort of sense of the "collective" by small acts demonstrating the value of solidarity and mutual aid. Getting to know your neighbours, your workmates, the other parents at the school gates, talking (and listening) about concerns and desires, discovering what we have in common and what small things we can do together to act on these.

Dog shit politics, as its sometimes known. i.e. if there's a problem with your street being covered by dogshit, getting together and cleaning it up whilst at the same time building that awareness that it's US that's doing it, not those in power. 

Acting, and talking about the hows and whys of those acts.

The talking (and listening) is important otherwise it just becomes voluntarism/big society/broom waving. Thats the big danger with this. 

But there's no shortcuts.

Where these networks are so eroded, they need to be rebuilt.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 15, 2016)

mauvais said:


> The random public aren't in a position to end the mechanics of 'lesser evilism'. For them it's a binary choice of output: evil or lesser evil. It shouldn't be a great surprise or insult if they fervently support the latter.


Well in regards to the US election the public didn't 'fervently support' the lesser evil (regardless of which candidate you think was the lesser evil), 45% of the electorate didn't vote at all. Both candidates got barely over a quarter of the electorate voting for them and were incredibly unpopular.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 15, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Well in regards to the US election the public didn't 'fervently support' the lesser evil (regardless of which candidate you think was the lesser evil), 45% of the electorate didn't vote at all.


I didn't say anything about a majority. But you can't be surprised or particularly appalled that some people, faced with the prospect of Trump, would hold their nose and put all their support behind Clinton. We seem quite happy acknowledging the reverse.


----------



## andysays (Nov 15, 2016)

Manter said:


> What should we be doing, do you think?


For instance


chilango said:


> Short answer: Provide a fucking alternative.
> 
> So people aren't left with a choice limited to (racist/sexist etc etc) populism or the status quo.
> 
> How to create that alternative is the problem.





chilango said:


> I don't think it (Trump or Brexit or UKIP or whatever...) was (just) about racism/racists. I will continue to work in my community, in my workplace etc. advocating an alternative to both kneejerk populism _and_ the status quo that is based upon practical examples of solidarity, mutual aid and so forth. Albeit in the most micro of ways. I will continue to believe, and advocate, that a better world is possible. I will also continue to believe that the "stupid" or "racist" people voting for Brexit for UKIP for Trump etc. also want a better world. However distorted or damaged a form that desire currently takes. And that its worth looking for common ground, for practical, achievable victories that show that world is possible. Mostly though, that will consist of talking to, and listening to, the people around me.





chilango said:


> It occurs to me that the "logging out" they advocate is something I (accidentally) did a few years back when I gradually stopped doing activist stuff and looked around and realised that none of my contemporaries social were activists (or even Political) anymore either. A break or rupture confirmed when I moved back here, and didn't (Urban aside) plug back into my old networks. Anyone that's known me on here for the duration might notice how that's really changed my arguments. I still "have the same politics" but but it manifests in a radically different way now. I'd argue that this "logging out" is something more should do. Abandon your vehicles not your destination (Sorry, a pretty wooly post I know , but...)



This is the sort of approach which chilango has been advocating and actually following for a while and, for what it's worth, I broadly agree with and am following it myself.

But he's also inviting and encouraging others to offer their perspectives and opinions, whether they agree with him or not. Simply saying, in effect (and you're not the only one)


> but what do *you* think?


isn't really an adequete response, either to the thread or more importantly to the situation we all find ourselves in, whoever's "fault" we think it might be.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 15, 2016)

mauvais said:


> I didn't say anything about a majority. But you can't be surprised or particularly appalled that some people, faced with the prospect of Trump, would hold their nose and put all their support behind Clinton. We seem quite happy acknowledging the reverse.


 I didn't claim otherwise I, I simply pointed out the the size of the population who fervently supported a lesser evil vote was, at max, just over 25%. In reality probably significantly less than that. Indeed the weak support of the "keep Trump out" vote, was probably one of the factors that cost Clinton the election.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 15, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> I didn't claim otherwise I, I simply pointed out the the size of the population who fervently supported a lesser evil vote was, at max, just over 25%. In reality probably significantly less than that. Indeed the weak support of the "keep Trump out" vote, was probably one of the factors that cost Clinton the election.



The low turnout may be partly explained by the electoral college system, in some states your vote really doesn't matter because the winner is a foregone conclusion. I know of people who didn't bother voting because of this. I suspect turnout will be higher in swing states (assume these numbers are available - I'm going to look now).


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 15, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> The low turnout may be partly explained by the electoral college system, in some states your vote really doesn't matter because the winner is a foregone conclusion. I know of people who didn't bother voting because of this. I suspect turnout will be higher in swing states (assume these numbers are available - I'm going to look now).


Sure, but that's irrelevant to the point under debate. If there was strong widespread support for a "keep Trump out" vote then Clinton wouldn't have lost. The recent electoral success of the hard right has been precisely because this vote is no longer turning out in the numbers it used to.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 15, 2016)

(Estimated) turnouts by state are here:

2016g - United States Elections Project

Not sure it really backs up my thoughts, doesn't help that I can't remember all of the swing states!


----------



## mauvais (Nov 15, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> I didn't claim otherwise I, I simply pointed out the the size of the population who fervently supported a lesser evil vote was, at max, just over 25%. In reality probably significantly less than that. Indeed the weak support of the "keep Trump out" vote, was probably one of the factors that cost Clinton the election.


I don't disagree, but it's not what I'm on about, which is merely that presented with someone who backed Clinton and/or is upset that she in particular lost, blaming them for an entirely predictable and understandable behaviour is self-destructive folly.

Not pivotal percentages of the electorate, just people and their opinions.


----------



## Manter (Nov 15, 2016)

andysays said:


> For instance
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I asked the question for a couple of reasons;
- because I read almost everything in politics and am interested to learn what other people's views and perspectives and suggestions are
- because on here (unless you are one of very few) sticking your neck out with an opinion is either brave or stupid or both


----------



## brogdale (Nov 15, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> (Estimated) turnouts by state are here:
> 
> 2016g - United States Elections Project
> 
> Not sure it really backs up my thoughts, doesn't help that I can't remember all of the swing states!


This may help?


----------



## Manter (Nov 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> I've posted somewhere on one the threads...
> 
> ...but I don't have some great blueprint, I do think we need to be going back to the basics though and trying to build right from the bottom.
> 
> ...


That's interesting. It makes a lot of sense but feels slow given we have a resurgent and normalised far right, right now. 

I am in no way saying it shouldn't happen... and it chimes with a conversation the Syrian and I had this weekend where he said the only way to defeat anti refugee feeling is through stories and connections (it's easy to hate a faceless hoard of refugees but difficult to hate Tito who is the same age as your son and obsessed with lego, or Ezee with the lopsided smile who watched his mum and sister die).  (The same thing applies across different communities; refugees is just the group/issue I know well.)

But right now as we watch stuff that was shocking become mainstream (e.g. Erosion of refugee rights and rise in detention; Palin was crazy 8 years ago now she may end up as one of the saner members of the US government; rise of racist violence across Europe) just being a bit kinder locally feels like an 'also' rather than the main point of attack. I just don't know what the main point of attack should be tbh.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

Manter said:


> I asked the question for a couple of reasons;
> - because I read almost everything in politics and am interested to learn what other people's views and perspectives and suggestions are
> - because on here (unless you are one of very few) sticking your neck out with an opinion is either brave or stupid or both



I'm happy with being asked. Even though it's not a great answer ("Great answers" make me suspicious anyway!). I'm also grateful to andysays for digging out my quotes, saved me the hassle!

Part of the reason I keep asking what people are going to _do_ based upon what they are arguing on these threads is that for me, choosing to focus on the class element of what is happenning (rather than racism or sexism or whatever, which are also part of the mix) is that that gives me a basis to work from.

A point of commonality. Something to organise around that might change things. Something that gives an "in" into what I'm doing and what I plan to do.

So, I can talk to people who voted UKIP (for example) with this as my starting point, a shared concern or grevience, that we (me and the UKIP voter) have in common. We can talk about how this manifests in real life for us both and what we can do _together_ about it. 

I can't do that (I don't think) if we take their "racism" as the starting point.

I'd be interested in hearing from those who are placing the racist etc. content of these types of votes at the forefront of their arguments plan to do with this conclusion to try and change things.

I hope that makes sense?


----------



## killer b (Nov 15, 2016)

I think everyone needs to take a long hard look at what we're doing tbh. The advocates of class politics have been saying the same thing for as long as I can remember, and while their analysis has been proved right time and time again, there's little comfort in being right while the world burns around you.

Demanding a change in tactics and focus from others while ploughing on with the same tactics and focus which have had very... _limited_ success for the past generation seems a bit pointless.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

Manter said:


> That's interesting. It makes a lot of sense but feels slow given we have a resurgent and normalised far right, right now.
> 
> I am in no way saying it shouldn't happen... and it chimes with a conversation the Syrian and I had this weekend where he said the only way to defeat anti refugee feeling is through stories and connections (it's easy to hate a faceless hoard of refugees but difficult to hate Tito who is the same age as your son and obsessed with lego, or Ezee with the lopsided smile who watched his mum and sister die).  (The same thing applies across different communities; refugees is just the group/issue I know well.)
> 
> But right now as we watch stuff that was shocking become mainstream (e.g. Erosion of refugee rights and rise in detention; Palin was crazy 8 years ago now she may end up as one of the saner members of the US government; rise of racist violence across Europe) just being a bit kinder locally feels like an 'also' rather than the main point of attack. I just don't know what the main point of attack should be tbh.



*Your first paragraph is exactly how I feel. Its the key to winning this IMO.*

The second shows the need people feel for a shortcut, a crisis response. A kneejerk sticking plaster.

However, the problem (as i see it) is we've been doing that for 20 years or so now. It isn't working. Its actually making things worse. It may have held things off, a bit, but we've failed to take any advantage of the breathing space its bought us.

Y'know, the BNP lost all their councillors, but the vote that elected them is still there, voting UKIP I suspect. And if we somehow "stop UKIP", they'll still be there.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> I think everyone needs to take a long hard look at what we're doing tbh. The advocates of class politics have been saying the same thing for as long as I can remember, and while their analysis has been proved right time and time again, there's little comfort in being right while the world burns around you.
> 
> Demanding a change in tactics and focus from others while ploughing on with the same tactics and focus which have had very... _limited_ success for the past generation seems a bit pointless.



Agreed.


----------



## LDC (Nov 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'm happy with being asked. Even though it's not a great answer ("Great answers" make me suspicious anyway!). I'm also grateful to andysays for digging out my quotes, saved me the hassle!
> 
> Part of the reason I keep asking what people are going to _do_ based upon what they are arguing on these threads is that for me, choosing to focus on the class element of what is happenning (rather than racism or sexism or whatever, which are also part of the mix) is that that gives me a basis to work from.
> 
> ...



Are you part of a political organization or group chilango? One of the conclusions I've been coming to slowly over recent years, and more concretely in the last year, is that we need to be in organizations/groups to work effectively. Question for me now is which one?


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Are you part of a political organization or group chilango? One of the conclusions Ive been coming to slowly over recent years, and more concretely in the last year is that we need to be in organizations/groups to work effectively. Question for me now is which one?



No.

No, I'm not (well I'm in a union).

I've been in a few in the past though, with mixed experiences tbh.


----------



## LDC (Nov 15, 2016)

Yup, totally mixed experiences. For me now the alternative of being an individual trying to get things done, with all the problems that entails (including being part of a wider political culture where that is the norm) is far worse though. As I've mentioned here before I think there really needs to be a shift away from activist individualism (and campaign/issue based politics) and the way that's the dominant model for the radical left, and for me being part of a long term group/organization that works things through collectively with a long term and radical perspective is part of the answer.

Like I said, need to find one, and it's a pretty sad state of affairs when it's hard to find a relevant, dynamic, politically sound, and active group to get involved with.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 15, 2016)

It's hard because the right is more determined and ruthless, and happier to forego the truth. While there's plenty of dishonesty on the 'left' side of things too (the Canary etc.) it gets called out and challenged more. I don't really see this much from the right. Plus there are no left-wing billionaires feeding money into grass roots groups, new media etc. (other than the tamest centrist 'liberal left'). How is that imbalance corrected?


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yup, totally mixed experiences. For me now the alternative of being an individual trying to get things done, with all the problems that entails (including being part of a wider political culture where that is the norm) is far worse though. As I've mentioned here before I think there really needs to be a shift away from activist individualism (and campaign/issue based politics) and the way that's the dominant model for the radical left, and for me being part of a long term group/organization that works things through collectively with a long term and radical perspective is part of the answer.
> 
> Like I said, need to find one, and it's a pretty sad state of affairs when it's hard to find a relevant, dynamic, politically sound, and active group to get involved with.



Problem is I don't see any groups that are "fit for purpose" really. I've a feeling we'd need to start from scratch and very consciously _not_ start yet another left/anarcho type group.

Who? How? and What?

Big questions.


----------



## LDC (Nov 15, 2016)

Have you been following the Angry Workers of the World stuff?

Angry Workers of the World


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Have you been following the Angry Workers of the World stuff?



No. Never heard of them. Will google.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> No. Never heard of them. Will google.


I was going to mention them in that conversation we had last week - really interesting stuff.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> Demanding a change in tactics and focus from others while ploughing on with the same tactics and focus which have had very... _limited_ success for the past generation seems a bit pointless.



This is important ime. It comes across as smug and inflexible. It says do as I say, not as I do. It demands a change in behaviour from others yet sits back and refuses to change anything about itself. As such, it positions itself outside of what is happening to all of us, telling others what they are doing wrong yet not offering up anything _it_ can do better.


----------



## treelover (Nov 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> I've been guilty of all the things redsquirrel talks about, lesser-evilism, anything but Trump etc. I do get that this is diametrically opposed to a vision of revolutionary far reaching long term change, that it offers no real answer and even perpetuates the problem. But in the absence of any sign (that I'm aware of) that there exists even the seeds of a viable _popular_ alternative to the rise of the hard right - which terrifies me, properly frightens me in a way that is probably not quite rational more emotional - I just feel helpless tbh.
> What makes me sad on top of that is how often (on here) things descend into personal attacks or grudges held for years, might be an inevitable part of the culture of a small message board like this I don't know but it's just so pointless and unproductive.



The IWCA tried in a small way, plenty of small groups have hosted meeting about the issues that affect the 'left behinds', benefits, zhc, failing care systems, the liberal left just don't attend, the attraction of showing their compassion limited as these issues are too dour, not global enough.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Have you been following the Angry Workers of the World stuff?
> 
> Angry Workers of the World



Thanks.

Interesting (well, to me at least!), will read more. 

But (and this is imo a pivotal problem) no real use for me talking to my workmates/neighbours etc. And I guess, again, we'll get caught up in a big discussion about class, who and what exactly do we mean by working class these days?

Few of the people I know would consider themselves "working class' and certainly wouldn't identify with the Angry Workers stuff. Yet, from the perspective of w/c vs. MOP blah blah blah, they are w/c. But there's no real need/incentive/point in self-defining thus. Class means something else to most people. Something more "cultural", more "identity" based. I don't agree (I argue enough on here about this), but IRL doing the small things I talk about, I have to use a different vocabulary. I need it to be framed in ways that I can talk to the people I meet IRL, on the school gate, at work, putting the bins out.

I was listening to some interview the other day where, without batting an eyelid, blue-collar workers (auto, steel etc.) were being described as "middle class Americans".

Kinda illustrates the problem.

Don't know what the answer is though.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> This is important ime. It comes across as smug and inflexible. It says do as I say, not as I do. It demands a change in behaviour from others yet sits back and refuses to change anything about itself. As such, it positions itself outside of what is happening to all of us, telling others what they are doing wrong yet not offering up anything _it_ can do better.



Is anyone doing that?

I'm not.

I hope?


----------



## treelover (Nov 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> I've posted somewhere on one the threads...
> 
> ...but I don't have some great blueprint, I do think we need to be going back to the basics though and trying to build right from the bottom.
> 
> ...



See my post above about lack of support, attendance, etc for basic issues like social security, housing, care system, etc, though IDB has stimulated interest for the first.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

treelover said:


> The IWCA tried in a small way, plenty of small groups have hosted meeting about the issues that affect the 'left behinds', benefits, zhc, failing care systems, the liberal left just don't attend, the attraction of showing their compassion limited as these issues are too dour, not global enough.



but it doesn't matter that the liberal-left didn't attend does it? they're not the audience surely that we need.


----------



## Ole (Nov 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> I think everyone needs to take a long hard look at what we're doing tbh. The advocates of class politics have been saying the same thing for as long as I can remember, and while their analysis has been proved right time and time again, there's little comfort in being right while the world burns around you.
> 
> Demanding a change in tactics and focus from others while ploughing on with the same tactics and focus which have had very... _limited_ success for the past generation seems a bit pointless.


 
It's not all doom... The chief American advocate of class politics is the most popular political figure in the country by a distance, and it is as conclusive as it can be that he would've taken Trump/anyone to the cleaners in the general election. There is as much to work with over there as there has been in a very long time.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

treelover said:


> See my post above about lack of support, attendance, etc for basic issues like social security, housing, care system, etc, though IDB has stimulated interest for the first.



...to add. Years ago when I was doing anti-JSA stuff to advertise a meeting to set something up, we leafletted door to door every street in my neighbourhood. Hundreds of houses. We leafletted outside the job centre. A dozen or so people showed up. They weren't activists. But we'd reached them. 

Similarly, iirc thats how the IWCA operated, the long slog of door knocking and leaflet pushing.

We can't just take the line of "if we build it, they will come".


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> Is anyone doing that?
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> I hope?



I am speaking generally, not _at_ you. 

To some extent, yes this is a common experience even here on Urban too. 

It's incredibly frustrating. Championing the rights of the W/C yet speaking in theories/terms that the average w/c person I am in contact with daily wouldn't connect to or care for.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I am speaking generally, not _at_ you.
> 
> To some extent, yes this is a common experience even here on Urban too.
> 
> It's incredibly frustrating. Championing the rights of the W/C yet speaking in theories/terms that the average w/c person I am in contact with daily wouldn't connect to or care for.



Good, good. I'm just conscious that I'm quite a loud - perhaps repetitive -voice on on some of these threads.


----------



## treelover (Nov 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> but it doesn't matter that the liberal-left didn't attend does it? they're not the audience surely that we need.



Not the core audience, no, but their resources/connections are sadly needed while the left behinds have so little/


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

treelover said:


> Not the core audience, no, but their resources/connections are sadly needed while the left behinds have so little/



I disagree.

Things need to be built, sustainably, from the bottom up.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I am speaking generally, not _at_ you.
> 
> To some extent, yes this is a common experience even here on Urban too.
> 
> It's incredibly frustrating. Championing the rights of the W/C yet speaking in theories/terms that the average w/c person I am in contact with daily wouldn't connect to or care for.



Surely the answer is to strive harder to build those broad, class-based networks, though, rather than give up on class politics in preference for identity politics or 'hot button' issues?  I mean, not everyody will necessarily appreciate the detail of a lot of the academic end of what's discussed here, but everyone can recognise the benefits of solidarity.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2016)

Athos said:


> Surely the answer is to strive harder to build those broad, class-based networks, though, rather than give up on class politics in preference for identity politics or 'hot button' issues?  I mean, not everyody will necessarily appreciate the detail of a lot of the academic end of what's discussed here, but everyone can recognise the benefits of solidarity.


And that's the challenge. The absence of solidarity is conspicuous. In the US in particular, in many parts of which such solidarity has never existed. So it's probably not quite right that everyone can recognise the benefits of class-based solidarity. Where there are other, vertically aligned, forms of solidarity in place, such as religion-based solidarity or race-based solidarity, these are things that need knocking down in order to build a broad base. 

I'm cautious about offering solutions when it comes to the US. Many of its problems can be traced directly back to the end of the Civil War. This isn't easy stuff.


----------



## Santino (Nov 15, 2016)

If a sustainable, ground-up movement was built and started having a positive impact on politics, then after a while the liberal commentariat would stop criticising it, start supporting it, and eventually claim credit for its successes.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> The road to hell is paved with lesser evil intentions



Nice, but it's also paved with good ones. Need to find a road many of us feel safe on, has a nice view, decent services etc.


----------



## killer b (Nov 15, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> This is important ime. It comes across as smug and inflexible. It says do as I say, not as I do. It demands a change in behaviour from others yet sits back and refuses to change anything about itself. As such, it positions itself outside of what is happening to all of us, telling others what they are doing wrong yet not offering up anything _it_ can do better.


I don't see any smugness. I see anger, frustration, sometimes a bit of self-righteousness... but no-one is smug. What is there to possibly be smug about?


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And that's the challenge. The absence of solidarity is conspicuous. In the US in particular, in many parts of which such solidarity has never existed. So it's probably not quite right that everyone can recognise the benefits of class-based solidarity. Where there are other, vertically aligned, forms of solidarity in place, such as religion-based solidarity or race-based solidarity, these are things that need knocking down in order to build a broad base.
> 
> I'm cautious about offering solutions when it comes to the US. Many of its problems can be traced directly back to the end of the Civil War. This isn't easy stuff.



The trouble with those parallel,vertically aligned forms are manifold.  First, they divide the working class into silos; secondly, each is dominated by those at the top, and so they don't offer the possibility for meaningful change (becasue it would be against those people's wider interests).  If it's easier for women to get into the boardroom, that'll benefit a small minority of women.  And do we really want to want police to shoot black and white people in equal proportions?  I'd say that the vast majority of women and black people have more to gain from the end of capitalism.

Fundamentally, those vertical structures reduce politics to hotch-potch of issues and casues, rather than any coherent ideology, which results in some pretty facile analysis and the adoption of completely counter-productive tactics.  Nobody interested in class politics would dismiss the need for anti-racism/sexism/homophobia etc. action, but realise that the most effctive long-term prospect is for those struggles to be seen as part of class struggle.

But, as a straight, white man, that's easy for me to say. I guess we need an effective short-term strategy which doesn't undermine a longer term class-based movement.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't see any smugness. I see anger, frustration, sometimes a bit of self-righteousness... but no-one is smug. *What is there to possibly be smug about?*



Well quite. It does seem smug though, but maybe it is _self-righteousness, _although they are synonyms and equally can be experienced as condescending and hypocritical.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Nice, but it's also paved with good ones. Need to find a road many of us feel safe on, has a nice view, decent services etc.


Yes, I often point out the road to hell paved with good intentions.


----------



## Ole (Nov 15, 2016)

Santino said:


> If a sustainable, ground-up movement was built and started having a positive impact on politics, then after a while the liberal commentariat would stop criticising it, start supporting it, and eventually claim credit for its successes.


 
I don't think so. The liberal "left", including the commentariat, would use every conceivable means at their disposal to knife it to death before it became too strong. The liberal "left" are fanatically committed to the idea of a ruling-class. They just believe that anyone should have the opportunity to be part of it, regardless of gender, race, religion, sexuality and so on.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 15, 2016)

2 facts consistently written out of the martyr myth: Plenty of privileged people are stupid. Plenty of relatively non privileged people are not stupid.

This whole "calling us stupid" thing has become part of the reactionary doublethink. They blather for decades about plain speaking and telling it like it is, but woe betide if one equates constant blatant flaws in logic with some form of stupidity.

It's ok for some to label others as "traitors" and "elitists" etc. but watch them bullyblub if they are labelled dupes.

To look at it from another angle though: I expect the OP is alluding to Trumps victory on top of the Ref result.

Prior to each vote plenty of people backing "Remain", then Clinton, were fully aware and honest about the faults of the EU and Clinton. 

But since the vote they have been pointing the finger just about everywhere else.

Trump certainly didn't win because of stupidity. He won primarily because Clinton was a shit candidate. People rejected the EU because it too had fallen short in many ways.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2016)

Athos said:


> The trouble with those parallel,vertically aligned forms are manifold.  First, they divide the working class into silos; secondly, each is dominated by those at the top, and so they don't offer the possibility for meaningful change (becasue it would be against those people's wider interests).  If it's easier for women to get into the boardroom, that'll benefit a small minority of women.  And do we really want to want police to shoot black and white people in equal proportions?  I'd say that the vast majority of women and black people have more to gain from the end of capitalism..


I would agree. And yes, your first point about vertical groups being dominated by those at the top is a very important one. But I'd also want, and need, to go further. The politics I would want to be a part of would say not only that the vast majority of, say, women and black people will benefit, but also stress that their benefit is also to the benefit of the vast majority of men and white people. There are no conflicts of interest here. There is, at a fundamental level, a common cause.  

This needs careful handling somewhere like the US, where such things as affirmative action both address an obvious problem and also create problems of their own by reinforcing feelings of vertical solidarity. Always a problem when trying to treat symptoms without addressing causes.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 15, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> ...
> It's incredibly frustrating. Championing the rights of the W/C yet speaking in theories/terms that the average w/c person I am in contact with daily wouldn't connect to or care for.



Any group that attempts to combine critical thought with political action has to strike a balance between unnecessary jargon and dumbing down their arguments. Obviously the language you use in the politics forum of a website with Urban75's history might be different from that used in a leaflet, but it's also hard to unpick how the language of class seems less relevant today from how contemporary capitalism has atomised our lives, which goes to the heart of the problem. Trying to think and communicate credibly about the majority of people, those who need to work in order to live, having the power to change their lives is understandably difficult today.

That said it would be good to have some examples of theories/terms people use, which you see as a barrier to being taken seriously.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ... There are no conflicts of interest here. There is, at a fundamental level, a common cause.



Yes, I agree. Sadly, too often we've seen identity politic campaigners rejecting the class based left wing.  Largely, becuase the leaders of those movements don't have the same fundamental interets as the working class.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> To look at it from another angle though: I expect the OP is alluding to Trumps victory on top of the Ref result.



I'm talking about a pattern that I've personally seen repeated, louder each time it seems, after the rise in the BNP, after the emergence of UKIP as an electoral force, during the EDL's fifteen minutes of fame, after the Brexit vote and now after Trump.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'm talking about a pattern that I've personally seen repeated, louder each time it seems, after the rise in the BNP, after the emergence of UKIP as an electoral force, during the EDL's fifteen minutes of fame, after the Brexit vote and now after Trump.



Fair enough. In many of these instances the "less privileged" being white heterosexual males, yes?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, I agree. Sadly, too often we've seen identity politic campaigners rejecting the class based left wing.  Largely, becuase the leaders of those movements don't have the same fundamental interets as the working class.


Also, we're talking of fine margins here, too. It's not like the entire US has just lost its mind, or even half of it. If Sanders had gained momentum earlier, he could have beaten Clinton, and it's not a coincidence that those crucial rust belt states are exactly the ones in which Sanders beat Clinton. In his albeit very liberal American voice, Sanders at least addressed the question of class, and the question of a conflict of interests between the rich and everyone else. We weren't that far off a Sanders presidency being the product of current conditions, not a Trump presidency.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 15, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Any group that attempts to combine critical thought with political action has to strike a balance between unnecessary jargon and dumbing down their arguments. Obviously the language you use in the politics forum of a website with Urban75's history might be different from that used in a leaflet, but it's also hard to unpick how the language of class seems less relevant today from how contemporary capitalism has atomised our lives, which goes to the heart of the problem. Trying to think and communicate credibly about the majority of people, those who need to work in order to live, having the power to change their lives is understandably difficult today.
> 
> That said it would be good to have some examples of theories/terms people use, which you see as a barrier to being taken seriously.



I'll use something from your post as an example if that is okay. I think it is a passive way that this kind of attitude manifests. Particularly salient on a thread with this title too I think.



> Any group that attempts to combine critical thought with political action has to strike a balance between unnecessary jargon and dumbing down their arguments.



Removing jargon is not _dumbing down_ an argument. If we are talking critical thought and political action there will surely be everyday examples to attach to and illustrate the point/s being made. Whilst there is certain terminology that is necessary/useful I think there is almost always a way of describing/discussing things in ways that don't exclude others. It takes effort though, granted.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Fair enough. In many of these instances the "less privileged" being white heterosexual males, yes?



In these instances many of whom (but not all by any means) would be white, many of whom (but not all by any means) would be male and many of whom (but not all by any means) would be heterosexual. Yes. But also many of whom (but not all by any means) would be working class, many of whom (but not all by any means) might not have had access to Higher Education and many of whom (but not all by any means) might live in areas of deprivation (as far as community resources, amenities, etc etc go).

Your point?


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 15, 2016)

Athos said:


> ...
> Nobody interested in class politics would dismiss the need for anti-racism/sexism/homophobia etc. action, but realise that the most effctive long-term prospect is for those struggles to be seen as part of class struggle.
> ...



The best class analysis goes well beyond this to also recognise that class relations are racialised and gendered. You can't seriously get to grips with class without recognising how racial and sexual division have also been used to maintain class power, and this has been a dynamic process which has evolved with capitalism.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> The best class analysis goes well beyond this to also recognise that class relations are racialised and gendered. You can't seriously get to grips with class without recognising how racial and sexual division have also been used to maintain class power, and this has been a dynamic process which has evolved as capitalism has evolved.



Absolutely.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> The best class analysis goes well beyond this to also recognise that class relations are racialised and gendered. You can't seriously get to grips with class without recognising how racial and sexual division have also been used to maintain class power, and this has been a dynamic process which has evolved with capitalism.


yep. Most certainly. I don't think anyone is saying 'don't talk about race/gender'.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes, I often point out the road to hell paved with good intentions.



So did Chris Rea. And he had to drive it home for Xmas.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> In these instances many of whom (but not all any means) would be white, many of whom (but not all any means) would be male and many of whom (but not all any means) would be heterosexual. Yes. But also many of whom (but not all any means) would be working class, many of whom (but not all any means) might not have had access to Higher Education and many of whom (but not all any means) might live in areas of deprivation (as far as community resources, amenities, etc etc go).
> 
> Your point?



People who are shat on and are white, working class are shat on because they are working class, not because they are white. The elite spin some distraction bollocks claiming to support their class (Theresa May has been laying this on with a trowel, just as staunch prolrtarian activist George Osborne did before)

The far right have long pretended to act on behalf of the working class, while being instinctive enemies of the class through, among other things, union busting, nationalism etc.

So in the wrong circumstances it's easy enough for a hoax alternative to be sold, whereby the establishment also promotes that alternative as "anti establishment", look at the efforts made post 2010 to say that UKIP were a northern alternative to Labour (not overlooking Labour's own failures to represent)

For all this, a lot of the moaners of the alt right etc. aren't relatively disadvantaged in any case. They do indeed tend to be white, straight males and are often not very economically disadvantaged, especially in world terms. What they are is martyr myth wankers, not even neccessarily stupid but very eager to suck up and bolster horseshit memes. 

There's so much over simplification in this debate. For example, this "liberal elite" meme that is all the rage, pushed by Theresa May so be very careful of buying into it. I know plenty of liberals. None of them are in the elite. But you know who stands to gain from the victory of that meme? The authoritarian elite. As a result of what the establishment defines as "anti establishment" votes, large amounts of extra power have been handed to parties who have dominated their countries for centuries. You couldn't make this shit up.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> For all this, a lot of the *moaners of the alt right* etc. aren't relatively disadvantaged in any case. They do indeed tend to be white, straight males and are often not very economically disadvantaged, especially in world terms. What they are is martyr myth wankers, not even neccessarily stupid but very eager to suck up and bolster horseshit memes.



Are they the same as the people I mentioned?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 15, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Best news I've heard in a while.



Surprised you hear anything at all, above the sound of your own witterings.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 15, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I'll use something from your post as an example if that is okay. I think it is a passive way that this kind of attitude manifests. Particularly salient on a thread with this title too I think.
> 
> 
> 
> Removing jargon is not _dumbing down_ an argument. If we are talking critical thought and political action there will surely be everyday examples to attach to and illustrate the point/s being made. Whilst there is certain terminology that is necessary/useful I think there is almost always a way of describing/discussing things in ways that don't exclude others. It takes effort though, granted.



This response feels a bit 'smug' to me. If you read my post in good faith it's clear that I used the phrase 'unnecessary jargon' as shorthand to acknowledge that technical language can sometimes be useful and that critical thinking can involve hard work, before going on to make a point you seem to broadly agree with.

I'm genuinely interested in what theories and terms people who talk in terms of class on Urban75 use, which you see as irrelevant.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> Are they the same as the people I mentioned?



No, perhaps you were being studiously selective. Perhaps I was too. This is a problem of the whole discussion - we try to apply analysis to very broad situations, huge numbers of people, and cant fail to pick out mere factions of those numbers to make points.

Saying that stupidity is stupid has never been an answer, though it doesn't make it less so. 

There's a cross over here with the whole "don't say racism is racist, it might make people more sympathetic to racists" line. Very easy for people who aren't victims of racism to say. 

Perhaps the left should say nothing at all and let stupid lies reign supreme. Who knows?

Ideally though, we are on the ground working in communities, we often are and we don't need to be told. The problem is more centered around voting periods, the dynamics of the system, parties etc.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 15, 2016)

Everyone to blame for twats like Trump ‘except the people who vote for them’


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 15, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> This response feels a bit 'smug' to me. If you read my post in good faith it's clear that I used the phrase 'unnecessary jargon' as shorthand to acknowledge that technical language can sometimes be useful and that critical thinking can involve hard work, before going on to make a point you seem to broadly agree with.



You asked for an example so instead of plucking some randomness out of the air I saw an opportunity to use something from our current conversation. Nothing smug about that.

Equally, I did read what you wrote in good faith, you used the term 'dumbing down' on a thread about priviledged people not calling others stupid, do you not see why I would pick up on that? I used the term 'passive', as I wasn't accusing you of doing it purposely.

Also, my point was about not perceiving jargonless conversations as dumb or that 'value' is lost by using everyday language and examples to illustrate political concepts.



> I'm genuinely interested in what theories and terms people who talk in terms of class on Urban75 use, which you see as irrelevant.


 Where have I said that any theories or terms are irrelevant?

If you are gonna start putting words into my mouth i'll not continue.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 15, 2016)

This is what I have been trying to get you to elaborate on:


Rutita1 said:


> ... Championing the rights of the W/C yet speaking in theories/terms that the average w/c person I am in contact with daily wouldn't connect to or care for.



I'm genuinely interested in what theories and terms you are referring to by this. (Obviously there is a general failure to get enough momentum behind an alternative to the status quo, but we all share in that.)

You've misconstrued what I have said about 'dumbing down'. I was trying to describe the need to communicate in a way that avoids the twin pitfalls of unnecessary jargon and patronising those you are trying to communicate with by using simplistic arguments.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 15, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> This is what I have been trying to get you to elaborate on:



Ah I see. I wasn't referring to any one theory or term. I meant the use of theory/jargon when unnecessary and/or the failure to illustrate political concepts using everyday situations so not to exclude. It was a general comment aimed at looking at what can be done differently in terms of engagement and building solidarity.

I think chilango alluded to similar when he was discussing 'how' to discuss certain things at the school gates for example.



> You've misconstrued what I have said about 'dumbing down'


 On your word I will accept that I have misconstrued what you meant by dumbing down.

I still have issues with the term though and hope you can understand my points about how such terms can passively manifest attitudes with regards knowledge/intellect. Arguments don't need to be complicated to have validity afterall.


----------



## killer b (Nov 15, 2016)

You don't have to take his word for it, you just have misconstrued it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> You don't have to take his word for it, you just have misconstrued it.



I am taking his word for it that he didn't mean it in that way.


----------



## killer b (Nov 15, 2016)

I don't understand. In the original post and in his explanation it's clear what he meant. Why do you have to 'take his word' for something thats a misunderstanding on your part?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't understand. In the original post and in his explanation it's clear what he meant. Why do you have to 'take his word' for something thats a misunderstanding on your part?



I don't use the expression 'dumbing down' when I am referring to speaking in non-jargony terms, therefore misunderstood his intention when using it. He has now clarified. I take his word for it and have been clear about my issue with such terms.

Maybe you can stop splitting hairs?


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't use the expression 'dumbing down' when I am referring to speaking in non-jargony terms, therefore misunderstood his intention when using it.


Neither did he.  It was clear that he was saying that we should aim for the space between the two extremes; one being jargon, the other being the stripping away of all/any terms of art.  You misunderstood what he was saying, but are trying to portray it as his failing, rather than your own.


----------



## killer b (Nov 15, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't use the expression 'dumbing down' when I am referring to speaking in non-jargony terms, therefore misunderstood his intention when using it. He has now clarified. I take his word for it and have been clear about my issue with such terms.
> 
> Maybe you can stop splitting hairs?


I'm not splitting hairs, I think it's pretty important - you misunderstood something, but saying you'll 'take his word for it' suggests you still don't understand (in fact, implicit in the phrase is the suggestion that you _don't _take his word for it - it's just a way of closing down the conversation, not any kind of acceptance of the other person's point)

People get shit wrong all the time, I know I certainly do - I think part of having the open and honest debate you say you want involves holding up our hands when we do so, rather than huffily shrugging it off.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> yep. Most certainly. I don't think anyone is saying 'don't talk about race/gender'.



I'm trying to get at something more than being able to continue to talk about these things though. Exploring how racial and gender divisions perpetuate class relations and vice versa is central to the best class analysis. Not only is this important for understanding social changes but also if there is to be any chance of class politics re-emerging as a serious 'political' force, otherwise railing against identity politics might seem like some white guys having nostalgia for a time when everyone else knew their place.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'm not splitting hairs, I think it's pretty important - you misunderstood something, but saying you'll 'take his word for it' suggests you still don't understand (in fact, implicit in the phrase is the suggestion that you _don't _take his word for it - it's just a way of closing down the conversation, not any kind of acceptance of the other person's point)
> 
> People get shit wrong all the time, I know I certainly do - I think part of having the open and honest debate you say you want involves holding up our hands when we do so, rather than huffily shrugging it off.



I'm not huffily shrugging it off ffs and you are splitting hairs IMO. I have openly accepted I misunderstood him/his use of the term and here you are telling me that I don't really mean that and I'm in a huff. Great.


----------



## killer b (Nov 15, 2016)

Oh, OK then.  I'll take your word for it.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> I'm trying to get at something more than being able to continue to talk about these things though. Exploring how racial and gender divisions perpetuate class relations and vice versa is central to the best class analysis. Not only is this important for understanding social changes but also if there is to be any chance of class politics re-emerging as a serious 'political' force, otherwise railing against identity politics might seem like some white guys having nostalgia for a time when everyone else knew their place.



I think you're right; it's important for class-based analysis to be seen to encompas race, gender etc., etc., rather than exclude it.  To acknowledge the importance of those issues to class, and vice versa. To show focus on class as a win/win, rather than a zero sum game.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 15, 2016)

> Oh, OK then. I'll take your word for it.



That would be nice actually, cheers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> I'm trying to get at something more than being able to continue to talk about these things though. Exploring how racial and gender divisions perpetuate class relations and vice versa is central to the best class analysis. Not only is this important for understanding social changes but also if there is to be any chance of class politics re-emerging as a serious 'political' force, otherwise railing against identity politics might seem like some white guys having nostalgia for a time when everyone else knew their place.


Sure. But at the same time, explaining and understanding does not need to include excusing. People still need to be taken to task and held responsible for the consequences of their racism, for instance. To understand is not necessarily to excuse.


----------



## killer b (Nov 15, 2016)

Tbf I think the only people doing any excusing are the racists.


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sure. But at the same time, explaining and understanding does not need to include excusing. People still need to be taken to task and held responsible for the consequences of their racism, for instance. To understand is not necessarily to excuse.



"Taken to task" 

How? By who? For what end?


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

Also who are these people? 

All Trump voters? All UKIP voters? All Brexit voters?

...or just the racist ones?


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2016)

Athos said:


> I think you're right; it's important for class-based analysis to be seen to encompass race, gender etc., etc., rather than exclude it.  To acknowledge the importance of those issues to class, and vice versa. To show it as a win/win, rather than a zero sum game.


Yes!  I'm one of the most clueless randoms on here, politically uneducated for sure, and this would help a lot. I'm willing to accept that I've got the wrong end of the stick on this exact thing here (repeatedly), I keep thinking that I hear people doing exactly that (talking as if its a zero sum game, that there is no room for talk of racism or feminism etc).
Instead of anyone trying to show me my error though, I've got anger instead, been called things worse than stupid, because people assume i'm doing it on purpose. Which just ends up reinforcing the feeling that this whole class based analysis excludes me. I hope a way forward can be found where this is made clear, so that people a bit like me who who might read the leaflet that eoin_k was imagining can feel included and not made to feel like the enemy.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yes!  I'm one of the most clueless randoms on here, politically uneducated for sure, and this would help a lot. I'm willing to accept that I've got the wrong end of the stick on this exact thing here (repeatedly), I keep thinking that I hear people doing exactly that (talking as if its a zero sum game, that there is no room for talk of racism or feminism etc).
> Instead of anyone trying to show me my error though, I've got anger instead, been called things worse than stupid, because people assume i'm doing it on purpose. Which just ends up reinforcing the feeling that this whole class based analysis excludes me. I hope a way forward can be found where this is made clear, so that people a bit like me who who might read the leaflet that eoin_k was imagining can feel included and not made to feel like the enemy.



It's not really for others to show you your error, though.  I'm sure that you're capable of spotting most of the issues yourself, if you tried.  Take your post I criticised, earlier, for example.  It was a series of fale assumptions and faulty conclusions, that you'd have noticed if you'd pur anything beyond the most superficial thought into it.  Not having a pop, but you can't really ask to be spoonfed if you don't appear to make an effort.


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2016)

Athos said:


> It's not really for others to show you your error, though.  I'm sure that you're capable of spotting most of the issues yourself, if you tried.  Take your post I criticised, earlier, for example.  It was a series of fale assumptions and faulty conclusions, that you'd have noticed if you'd pur anything beyond the most superficial thought into it.  Not having a pop, but you can't really ask to be spoonfed if you don't appear to make an effort.


Again, you think i'm doing it on purpose or am being wilfully obtuse. Calling people stupid isn't working so lets call em lazy instead.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> Again, you think i'm doing it on purpose or am being wilfully obtuse. Calling people stupid isn't working so lets call em lazy instead.



No, it's precisely becasue I don't think you're stupid that I put it down to laziness (which is more charitable that the third possible explanation).

What do you understand class to mean, and how does it interact with e.g. race and sex?


----------



## treelover (Nov 15, 2016)

> * Who are ‘the left behind’? *
> 
> *By Tom O’Leary*
> 
> ...



Socialist Appeal(Livingstone and CO) don't seem to think the 'white working class' exists and if it does, then its not doing badly compared to other minorities.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 15, 2016)

treelover said:


> Socialist Appeal(Livingstone and CO) don't seem to think the 'white working class' exists and if it does, then its not doing badly compared to other minorities.


The link doesn't say what they claim it does.


----------



## treelover (Nov 15, 2016)

emanymton said:


> The link doesn't say what they claim it does.





> There has been much ill-informed discussion of the ‘left behind’, sometimes spuriously described as the white working class


----------



## treelover (Nov 15, 2016)

> In Britain, the real left behind, much more likely to be unemployed and low paid are youth and especially black and Asian youth. Black people and Asian people in general are also more likely to be unemployed and, if in work, face pay discrimination. Women are also more likely to be discouraged from the workforce, yet Asian women are the sole category of women whose unemployment rate is higher than their male counterparts, even after taking this obstacle into account.



They may be right about who is hit the hardest, but this article seems to be trying to nip in the bud any other analysis such as the IWCA one.


----------



## LDC (Nov 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> but it doesn't matter that the liberal-left didn't attend does it? they're not the audience surely that we need.



Better they don't tbh. Enough problems to deal with without liberals turning it into some charity drive.


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2016)

Athos said:


> No, it's precisely becasue I don't think you're stupid that I put it down to laziness (which is more charitable that the third possible explanation).
> 
> What do you understand class to mean, and how does it interact with e.g. race and sex?


Thanks, i think. Will come back tomorrow if that's ok and have a go at answering this.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> Also who are these people?
> 
> All Trump voters? All UKIP voters? All Brexit voters?
> 
> ...or just the racist ones?


3rd party voters? Non-voters?



littlebabyjesus said:


> yep. Most certainly. I don't think anyone is saying 'don't talk about race/gender'.


No but that is precisely what some people on here have been accused of.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2016)

treelover said:


> Socialist Appeal(Livingstone and CO) don't seem to think the 'white working class' exists and if it does, then its not doing badly compared to other minorities.


i think you'll find that socialist appeal was a split from militant and that ken livingstone is not a member.

nice to see another well-informed attack on socialists though.


----------



## Manter (Nov 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> Also who are these people?
> 
> All Trump voters? All UKIP voters? All Brexit voters?
> 
> ...or just the racist ones?


Please let's not have the categorical syllogism argument again. I may not cope


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2016)

Manter said:


> Please let's not have the categorical syllogism argument again. I may not cope



I don't know what "categorical syllogism" is I'm afraid, but if not doing it avoids repeating arguments we've already had then I'm on board with that...


----------



## Manter (Nov 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> I don't know what "categorical syllogism" is I'm afraid, but if not doing it avoids repeating arguments we've already had then I'm on board with that...


Sorry toddler bedtime got in way

It's the dogs/legs thing-
All dogs have four legs 
This has for legs 
This is a dog

So all Brexiters are not racists. But all racists were brexiters. It's slightly more problematic with trump voters as even the 'non-racists' were able to listen to all Mexicans are rapists and Muslims/Syrians are terrorists and go 'yup, fine with that'.... but the principle stands I guess 


(When expressed as;
We must do something!
This is something
We must do this! 
Is called the politician's fallacy.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2016)

Manter said:


> So not all Brexiters are not racists. But all racists were brexiters.


c4u

not sure you're right tho, wouldn't be surprised if there were a few auld mosleyites among the remainers.


----------



## Manter (Nov 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> c4u
> 
> not sure you're right tho, wouldn't be surprised if there were a few auld mosleyites among the remainers.


Trust you to sort out my sentence  
Is that a proper sentence? ^^

Oh god, now paralysed by crippling self doubt...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2016)

Manter said:


> Trust you to sort out my sentence
> Is that a proper sentence? ^^
> 
> Oh god, now paralysed by crippling self doubt...


trust is in that sentence a verb, perhaps the imperative


----------



## Manter (Nov 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> trust is in that sentence a verb, perhaps the imperative


<<sob>>


----------



## two sheds (Nov 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes, I often point out the road to hell paved with good intentions.



You intend well


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 15, 2016)

nobody asks who is actually the paver do they? Is it supposed to Beelzebub&Sons of Darkness Inc. ? Its not going to be the actual prince of hell. Astaroth? does astaroth have shares in Jim'll Mix It construction firm?


we need to know. The main paver, not slab laying libs


----------



## Cid (Nov 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> nobody asks who is actually the paver do they? Is it supposed to Beelzebub&Sons of Darkness Inc. ? Its not going to be the actual prince of hell. Astaroth? does astaroth have shares in Jim'll Mix It construction firm?
> 
> 
> we need to know. The main paver, not slab laying libs



I think they've kept the Cones Hotline open so you can find out, there's just a risk you'll be trapped in it for eternity.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 16, 2016)

Manter said:


> So all Brexiters are not racists. But all racists were brexiters.


What about those in the Labour party insisting that "some must be done about immigration", not racist? David Cameron the man who's government sent vans round telling people to shop immigrants to the authorities? The MPs who voted for wars that have left millions of dead and support the disgusting regime in Saudi Arabia? These people aren't racists?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 16, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> What about those in the Labour party insisting that "some must be done about immigration", not racist? David Cameron the man who's government sent vans round telling people to shop immigrants to the authorities? The MPs who voted for wars that have left millions of dead and support the disgusting regime in Saudi Arabia? These people aren't racists?


You're talking about a very small number of people in power. Manter, if I have her right, is talking about a large number of people not in power. You're talking about a totally different thing.

Also, is it ever going to end that whenever someone talks about racists and racism, someone else will jump in and say 'are you saying all xyz are racist'? 'No, I'm not, and I never even implied it.' It's fucking tiresome.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Also, is it ever going to end that whenever someone talks about racists and racism, someone else will jump in and say 'are you saying all xyz are racist'? 'No, I'm not, and I never even implied it.' It's fucking tiresome.


Good job I didn't say that then isn't it. I do agree that its fucking tiresome correcting people that misrepresent what you say though.


----------



## chilango (Nov 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're talking about a very small number of people in power. Manter, if I have her right, is talking about a large number of people not in power. You're talking about a totally different thing.
> 
> Also, is it ever going to end that whenever someone talks about racists and racism, someone else will jump in and say 'are you saying all xyz are racist'? 'No, I'm not, and I never even implied it.' It's fucking tiresome.


No.

You made the point that "people need to be taken to task for the consequences of their racism".

I want to know _who_ you mean here.

It's not an unreasonable question.

Neither were my others. Who should "take them to task"?  how? and for what purpose?

Otherwise it's a bit of a vague "down with this sort of thing" rather than something concrete to actually do.


----------



## Purdie (Nov 16, 2016)

Manter said:


> <...> a conversation the Syrian and I had this weekend where he said the only way to defeat anti refugee feeling is through stories and connections (


You can only connect so far.   Suppose I'm racist for daring to utter that


----------



## emanymton (Nov 16, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> What about those in the Labour party insisting that "some must be done about immigration", not racist? David Cameron the man who's government sent vans round telling people to shop immigrants to the authorities? The MPs who voted for wars that have left millions of dead and support the disgusting regime in Saudi Arabia? These people aren't racists?


I maintain that they only true anti-racist vote, was to vote leave or abstain. the EU is a rascist institution that promotes freedom of movement of mostly white and relative well of Europeans, but will leave Africans to drown by the thousand. How anyone can vote in favour of that and still call themselves anti-racist and pro immigration is beyond me.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 16, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I maintain that they only true anti-racist vote, was to vote leave or abstain. the EU is a rascist institution that promotes freedom of movement of mostly white and relative well of Europeans, but will leave Africans to drown by the thousand.


Indeed and are we saying the CBI, IoD, Conservative Party, Labour Party, LibDems etc aren't racist institutions. Of course they are.


----------



## no-no (Nov 16, 2016)

Why are those institutions racist?


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 16, 2016)

no-no said:


> Why are those institutions racist?



Because their policies and needs parallel those of the EU. The CBI uses the threat of mass migration to suppress wages and stokes resentment in the process, but has no interest in a system where people are let in, qualify for support and as true citizens end up joining in on pressing for better conditions/wages/government support/raised taxes on the rich. It's a desperate, pliant workforce they're after and systemic racism (as distinct from just shouting "I don't like black people" or something) provides that.

The Conservatives/Labour/Lib Dems meanwhile use border control as a lure to reactionary groups and a wedge to keep working class communities at each others' throats rather than punching upwards at the people with all the money. And most of their personal interests lie in roughly the same place as those of the CBI. British policy on Calais and the Med for the last 20 years largely speaks for itself, let alone the outright horrific response to Syria, or Labour's immigration mugs.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 16, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I maintain that they only true anti-racist vote, was to vote leave or abstain. the EU is a rascist institution that promotes freedom of movement of mostly white and relative well of Europeans, but will leave Africans to drown by the thousand. How anyone can vote in favour of that and still call themselves anti-racist and pro immigration is beyond me.



This simply brings us back to the lesser of two evils debate. I find the idea that outside of the EU the U.K. (or even the EU without the UK) would behave any less cruelly to refugees highly unlikely. But it's a point we can reasonably disagree on. 

I don't find it a compelling argument for an endless slagging of progressives which is currently providing similarly endless comfort across the right.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2016)

no-no said:


> Why are those institutions racist?


who can say? but they are, nonetheless.


----------



## no-no (Nov 16, 2016)

Wow, things have moved on a bit. I wasn't expecting an admission that mass migration has an effect on wages at all.

I'm still not sure their policies are race driven though, if we had a large influx of white migrants things would be played out much the same no? The Polish for example, I'm sure the same game could be played if we were to have a large influx of english speaking migrants too...americans or australians.

Having said that it might be a harder line to sell to the british public, people may well have more empathy if immigrants were largely white and english speaking.

I'm not confident that if we allowed migrants to become true citizens we would all start to punch up. There are other divides these cunts exploit, class, single mums,the unemployed, etc...but yes I see your point, race is one of the divides they are exploiting now.

The thing I don't get is. Say we managed to vote in a party that implemented a progressive tax system, mass migration and a path to citizenship. How long would it work considering other countries have such low living standards compard to our own? Surely everyone would flood into a country with decent working rights, fair pay and taxation, proper investment in services. That's pretty much where we are are now isn't it?


----------



## andysays (Nov 16, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> This simply brings us back to the lesser of two evils debate. I find the idea that outside of the EU the U.K. (or even the EU without the UK) would behave any less cruelly to refugees highly unlikely. But it's a point we can reasonably disagree on.
> 
> I don't find it a compelling argument for an endless slagging of progressives which is currently providing similarly endless comfort across the right.



I'm inclined to agree with your first paragraph, but it's worth pointing out that the argument about the EU being racist eg in its treatment of non-Europeans is being brought up as a response to the on-going accusation from many "progressives" that those of us voting to leave the EU were either racist ourselves or at least supporting racists and racism.

The reality is that there is no absolute anti-racist moral high ground for anyone to claim in the EU or not debate, or the Republican or Democrat debate, or many others where it gets wheeled out by self-styled progressives attempting to demonise everyone on the other side to them.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 16, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> This simply brings us back to the lesser of two evils debate. I find the idea that outside of the EU the U.K. (or even the EU without the UK) would behave any less cruelly to refugees highly unlikely. But it's a point we can reasonably disagree on.


Which is why I felt abstaining would have been a perfectly resanble  position. I can understand not wanting to vote at all.

The British state, is the British in or out of the EU its nature does not change. We (sadly) were not given a vote on the nature of the British state, but were given the chance to vote against one rascist neo-liberal institution. And one difference between leave and remain is that a remain vote is a vote explicitly in fabour of something while a leave vote was not. 

Nobody would claim that being outside the EU will automatically make thinks better. But future battles will be against only the British state, not the British state plus the EU.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 16, 2016)

andysays said:


> The reality is that there is no absolute anti-racist moral high ground for anyone to claim in the EU or not debate, or the Republican or Democrat debate, or many others where it gets wheeled out by self-styled progressives attempting to demonise everyone on the other side to them.



But who do you accuse of dealing in absolutes? It's pretty obvious that there is a relative difference between the Republican party and the Democratic party and between the In and Out campaigns when it comes to racism/anti-racism.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 16, 2016)

no-no said:


> Wow, things have moved on a bit. I wasn't expecting an admission that mass migration has an effect on wages at all.



I dunno what you've been reading but I wasn't aware there was any "admission" going on, implying some sort of prior taboo? Pretty much everyone talks about the impact of migration on wages in some form or another, the Sun reckons it's all negative, the Guardian that it's all positive. If there is an admission to be made it's probably one for both liberals and rightists to say that reality is much more complex, nuanced and heavily warped by the official policies of governments, led by the machinations of commercial interests, than it's politically expedient to talk about. 

It would be ludicrous, for example, to pretend that bosses never use the implicit threat of migrant labour to try and scare their employees into compliance, just as they use the threat of decamping overseas, or threats of inflation. The reality of whether that threat is really practicable and how it might manifest is something very different and will vary wildly on a case-by-case basis. It would also be ludicrous to imagine that governments don't, while talking every week about "securing borders," understand implicitly that they are unable to do so effectively while _also_ maintaining economic stability, and therefore concentrate mainly on undermining the ability of new incomers to co-operate with existing citizens, to varying degrees of success but always with the outcome that vulnerable people get shat on. 



no-no said:


> I'm still not sure their policies are race driven though, if we had a large influx of white migrants things would be played out much the same no?



Racism has no particular reason to be associated solely with skin colour. Britain's had No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish signs out within living memory. 

I was also careful to specifically note the difference between _systemic_ racism and cultural or indivual racism, which you ignored. It is possible for a policy to be racist while never saying anything about race - eg. if you "close the border to undocumented migrant" the de facto impact is a whole mass of brown refugees get excluded. You can have as many minority ethnic friends as you like, you can even be black (and many border control guards are, it's not a prestige job), but that policy you're being paid to enact will still be discriminating against The Other. 



no-no said:


> I'm not confident that if we allowed migrants to become true citizens we would all start to punch up.



There's never guarantees. But the only way the working class can realistically act in a united fashion against our real oppressors is by _being united_. That means organising with migrants, not denying them a stake in society and shunning them until they stop giving a shit.



no-no said:


> Surely everyone would flood into a country with decent working rights, fair pay and taxation, proper investment in services. That's pretty much where we are are now isn't it?



Well let's turn this around for a second. Britain is currently in the midst of a downturn. The pound is weak and not buying much, jobs are scarce and casualised, our working rights are some of the worst in Europe and our housing some of the most expensive.  Lithuania just passed a more progressive law on zero hours contracts than us. Germany has better, cheaper homes and more jobs. We are living through the dog days of free movement within Europe.

So why aren't you in Germany?


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 16, 2016)

The threads title begs the question had all the horrible progressives been nicer would that have worked?

To be frank, no, unless there was an economic solution to go with it.

What we have is battles between liberal (and illiberal) elites. The less liberal ones have kept a section of the (white) populations' piss on the boil for years. They and the people they were encouraged to hate are pawns. The aim of the game is to trash even the mild restraint other liberals place upon their activities in terms of taxation, regulation, social justice and carbon emissions. They have created a fantasy that something liberal approaching socialism runs the world and it is it not they together that are fucking the world over

Any future electoral politics of the left needs to drum this home endlessly.

Whilst we should reject market based liberal economics dressed up as left wing we don't need to reject people for being angry or fearful with these results. Doing so to such an extent isn't going to attract anyone to left wing solutions, largely because most don't discern between lefties and progressives. People will just take your ire to support their position.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 16, 2016)

A couple of points about 'flooding' into countries with decent working rights.

First, Norway does indeed get a very large number of people going there, far more per capita than the UK.

But second, it's not quite that simple. Countries with higher average standards of living, like Norway, are not necessarily the best places for immigrants to find work. London is a very good example of a place that is very harsh for new arrivals due to the staggering housing costs, but there is also a massive amount of work available in London. Despite its evident problems, London remains an attractive place.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 16, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Which is why I felt abstaining would have been a perfectly resanble  position. I can understand not wanting to vote at all.
> 
> The British state, is the British in or out of the EU its nature does not change. We (sadly) were not given a vote on the nature of the British state, but were given the chance to vote against one rascist neo-liberal institution. And one difference between leave and remain is that a remain vote is a vote explicitly in fabour of something while a leave vote was not.
> 
> Nobody would claim that being outside the EU will automatically make thinks better. But future battles will be against only the British state, not the British state plus the EU.



'Battles' were already against the British State. The EU didn't prevent the UK from building social housing, or creating jobs. 

Of course you were voting for something. Fanciful to think that you were not. You were voting for the unrestrained national interests over the supernational interest. Just as with the EU's faults you can't ignore what this leads to given the very right wing politics of our times.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 16, 2016)

lets list all the EU restraints again shall we? You know, all those things the EU is for and stopped our governments doing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 16, 2016)

It's naive in the extreme to think that removing the UK from the EU removes an opponent in a future battle. At the same stroke, it removes potential allies - note that it was Walloons asserting their interests that blocked and had the Canadian trade deal amended. TTIP was also scotched not by the UK but by EU-wide opposition. And any battle is not just against the government but against the powers that control governments - international capital and its interests. That doesn't change. In fact, I would argue that individual govts are likely to be more beholden to capital interests than supranational groups, not less.


----------



## billy_bob (Nov 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's naive in the extreme to think that removing the UK from the EU removes an opponent in a future battle. At the same stroke, it removes potential allies - note that it was Walloons asserting their interests that blocked and had the Canadian trade deal amended. TTIP was also scotched not by the UK but by EU-wide opposition. And any battle is not just against the government but against the powers that control governments - international capital and its interests. That doesn't change. In fact, I would argue that individual govts are likely to be more beholden to capital interests than supranational groups, not less.



Although I respect the left perspective on the reasons to leave and I'm still far from certain that leaving will be all bad, it's basically this that convinced me to vote remain. On the economy I'm not convinced the fight has become any more winnable now, and on social rights and the environment, for example, I'm sure it's become harder.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> individual govts are likely to be more beholden to capital interests than supranational groups, not less.



People forget that a good chunk of the reasoning behind the creation of the EU was to allow what had been a collection of medium-powered States to avoid being bullied by bigger players, national and corporate. Britain on its own is going to get pushed around by everyone from the US and China to BP and Microsoft — we're already seeing it happen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 16, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> People forget that a good chunk of the reasoning behind the creation of the EU was to allow what had been a collection of medium-powered States to avoid being bullied by bigger players, national and corporate. Britain on its own is going to get pushed around by everyone from the US and China to BP and Microsoft — we're already seeing it happen.


Yep, and to repeat what I've said elsewhere, you only have to read David Davis's pamphlet on Brexit, which he released just after the vote and which is basically the thing that got him his job, to see what is intended. A race to the bottom, an undercutting of the EU in trade deals to gain competitive advantage for British businesses at the expense of British workers. He's very clear about this - 'different standards for different markets' is his idea.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep, and to repeat what I've said elsewhere, you only have to read David Davis's pamphlet on Brexit, which he released just after the vote and which is basically the thing that got him his job, to see what is intended. A race to the bottom, an undercutting of the EU in trade deals to gain competitive advantage for British businesses at the expense of British workers. He's very clear about this - 'different standards for different markets' is his idea.



It's worse than that. We're not really going  to have a choice about compensating business for Brexit. If you have a workable alternative to DD's proposals, get it in writing quickly.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 16, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> People forget that a good chunk of the reasoning behind the creation of the EU was to allow what had been a collection of medium-powered States to avoid being bullied by bigger players, national and corporate. Britain on its own is going to get pushed around by everyone from the US and China to BP and Microsoft — we're already seeing it happen.



I think this idealises post-war European history. The origins of the EU are bound up with US foreign policy at the end of the 1940s, which determined that France should not be allowed to reindustrialise by expropriating West German steel and coal reserves. The alternative was greater political and economic integration,  concentrating power in the hands of French bureaucrats and German industrialists. Varoufakis goes as far as to suggest that US concerns about the policies of Britain's post-war Labour government helped determine this policy, with Germany under the Christian Democrats (and with a politically decimated working class) seeming like a more reliable regional industrial power. While not repeating the mistakes of the Treaty of Versaille, European integration has suited the agenda of the world's greatest super power until now. It is no coincidence that Robert Schumann, one of the EU's founding father, was also a founder of NATO. Even if it is hard to see how leaving can lead to a positive outcome, we should view the European institutions as critically as the government's plans for Brexit.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 16, 2016)

I wouldn't want to understate the extent of US influence, and said "a good chunk" as a nod to other influences, but seems to me it would be underestimating the local bourgies to pitch it as _all_ Washington — confluence of interests n all that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> The threads title begs the question had all the horrible progressives been nicer would that have worked?


the title begs the question, are privileged people as intelligent as less privileged people?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> People forget that a good chunk of the reasoning behind the creation of the EU was to allow what had been a collection of medium-powered States to avoid being bullied by bigger players, national and corporate. Britain on its own is going to get pushed around by everyone from the US and China to BP and Microsoft — we're already seeing it happen.


this would be the medium powered france and the medium powered west germany i suppose.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 16, 2016)

The question begs the title: Privileged people are stupid


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> this would be the medium powered france and the medium powered germany i suppose.



They certainly didn't have the heft of the US or USSR. And they'd struggle as much as Britain outside the EU.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> They certainly didn't have the heft of the US or USSR.


no indeed. but economically west germany was doing very nicely in the 50s and 60s, while france one of the few countries which can and could project its power overseas, albeit with er mixed results. 





> And they'd struggle as much as Britain outside the EU.


maybe they would. but one of the _founder_ countries leaving the eu would likely have a greater shock on the institution than one of the later arrivals.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 16, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> we should view the European institutions as critically as the government's plans for Brexit.


Absolutely. Varoufakis described his position on brexit as 'radical remain' - stay in and work to change the EU from within, form alliances to do so, don't underestimate how much is wrong with it. That was my position, more or less. My fear now is the same as Varoufakis's fear - as Europe fractures, r/w populist nationalism will find its way into power, by the ballot in places like France, and quite possibly by the boot in places like Greece.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no indeed. but economically west germany was doing very nicely in the 50s and 60s, while france one of the few countries which can and could project its power overseas, albeit with er mixed results



Tier 2 powers then?


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 16, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> I wouldn't want to understate the extent of US influence, and said "a good chunk" as a nod to other influences, but seems to me it would be underestimating the local bourgies to pitch it as _all_ Washington — confluence of interests n all that.



Sure, the EU isn't simply a puppet of US interests, but in the late 1940s Jean Monnet - Europe's other founding father - was planning French economic development based on precisely that model (i.e. expropriating German resources). The European Coal and Steel Community was set up right in the middle of the Marshall Aid programme, when the US holds the purse strings and calls the shots.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> 'lets say that trump voters were one third sexists one third racists and one third genuinely economically disturbed' he says, and then that 'the only thing that's malleable to public policy is the economic part'.
> Maybe that's true if public policy simply means the actions of the State. But what about everyone else, who is not the government: Surely this is not a good time for feminists and anti-racists to be told to pipe down, or even told that they are a big part of the problem, with their alienating identity politics etc.
> There has to be a way for these concerns to not be mutually exclusive and locked in a zero sum game type fight.



Selective citation is generally the tool of a tool, you spanner.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 16, 2016)

treelover said:


> Nick Cohen seems to be starting to get it, well, bits of it.



Through the gin-fog.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Absolutely. Varoufakis described his position on brexit as 'radical remain' - stay in and work to change the EU from within, form alliances to do so, don't underestimate how much is wrong with it. That was my position, more or less. My fear now is the same as Varoufakis's fear - as Europe fractures, r/w populist nationalism will find its way into power, by the ballot in places like France, and quite possibly by the boot in places like Greece.



The issue I had with that book was that his depiction of how messed up the whole project was seemed much more convincing than his proposals for reform. I remember thinking that a vote to remain committed me to engaging in an ongoing project to reform EU politics in a way that didn't even feel really possible, never mind desirable. I'm not sure that I would do so again, but his book helped persuade me to vote to leave the EU - that and stuff posted on here by both sides of the debate.


----------



## no-no (Nov 16, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> I dunno what you've been reading but I wasn't aware there was any "admission" going on, implying some sort of prior taboo?



My surprise was based on previous threads here and on conversations I've had irl regarding immigration affecting wages.

I agree we should be uniting with immigrants however I just don't see it happening. What form does solidarity take? Are migrants signing up to unions when they arrive? 

With regards to systematic racism, it undoubtedly exists but isn't it important to draw a distinction between the aim of the policy and it's results? Just because a policy broadly affects a particular race doesn't make it racist, the intent behind the policy is what makes it racist. Controlling borders might be about race for some but for most it's about protecting wages, the fact the people being kept out are largely of a different race is irrelevant.

"There's never guarantees. But the only way the working class can realistically act in a united fashion against our real oppressors is by _being united_. That means organising with migrants, not denying them a stake in society and shunning them until they stop giving a shit."

Again, I agree with you on this but I don't see it happening and it's been a long long time since I last had this conversation on these boards, things have only got worse. The far right has more power now than they did then, of course had we controlled immigration years ago who's to say if working conditions and pay would have improved over here or if the target would have shifted.

Why am I not in Germany? My life here is not hard enough to warrant the move, the conditions between here and Germany are not as pronounced as between Poland and the UK, or Somalia and the UK. My German is also non existant, most migrants have a smattering of english or french.

I think there is also something to say for a persons expectations of being able to find employment in the area they grew up, where their family lives. It's no good thing that people may start to consider it the norm to live abroad to earn a living. This applies to everyone.

tbh the whole thing confuses me and my understanding of economics is terrible which doesn't help, I try to reason my way through it but I know that there are things I don't really understand which may well undercut my points. So this is the other thing, it's really really complicated. Most people spend very little time reading about this shit, any message you use to unite people has to be easy attractive and easy to understand. Trump was very shrewd to campaign on both immigration and kicking big money out of politcs.
 -


----------



## no-no (Nov 16, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Although I respect the left perspective on the reasons to leave and I'm still far from certain that leaving will be all bad, it's basically this that convinced me to vote remain. On the economy I'm not convinced the fight has become any more winnable now, and on social rights and the environment, for example, I'm sure it's become harder.



But we do have a government that are more directly accountable than the EU now, although the UKs voting record is dire. I'm not confident we won't carry on voting for centre right parties or worse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2016)

no-no said:


> Why am I not in Germany? My life here is not hard enough to warrant the move, the conditions between here and Germany are not as pronounced as between Poland and the UK, or Somalia and the UK. My German is also non existant, most migrants have a smattering of english or french.
> -


it's been my experience that german people are almost universally happy to speak english, and a repetition of the phrase 'sprechen sie englisch bitte' will practically invariably be met with a positive response.


----------



## bimble (Nov 16, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Selective citation is generally the tool of a tool, you spanner.


cheers. thats got to be about 5 people who've called me names for that post, all assuming i wrote it to somehow have a go at people. Spanner is better than the rest though so thanks. . Pages after that , Athos wrote 'it will be important to explain to people how this is not a zero sum game' , so for all my stupidness i take comfort in the idea that apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't get it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 16, 2016)

no-no said:


> But we do have a government that are more directly accountable than the EU now, although the UKs voting record is dire. I'm not confident we won't carry on voting for centre right parties or worse.


I would dispute that. The process trade agreements have to go through in the EU contains accountability - that's why they take so long. I fear there will be precious little accountability on the UK's trade deals.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 16, 2016)

remember that time the EU whipped the cloak of secrecy away from TTIP? 

I've been googling for it since I'm sure they would have, but my search results come up dry


----------



## no-no (Nov 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would dispute that. The process trade agreements have to go through in the EU contains accountability - that's why they take so long. I fear there will be precious little accountability on the UK's trade deals.



That might be so but we can vote the Tories out relatively easily, the question is how likely do they think that is, how much do they think they can get away with?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 16, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> remember that time the EU whipped the cloak of secrecy away from TTIP?
> 
> I've been googling for it since I'm sure they would have, but my search results come up dry


The TTIP that they failed to get through? That one?


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> cheers. thats got to be about 5 people who've called me names for that post, all assuming i wrote it to somehow have a go at people. Spanner is better than the rest though so thanks. . Pages after that , Athos wrote 'it will be important to explain to people how this is not a zero sum game' , so for all my stupidness i take comfort in the idea that apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't get it.



Please don't use quotation marks if you're not actually quoting verbatim (regardless of whether or not you use the quote function).


----------



## emanymton (Nov 16, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> remember that time the EU whipped the cloak of secrecy away from TTIP?
> 
> I've been googling for it since I'm sure they would have, but my search results come up dry




MPs can view TTIP files – but take only pencil and paper with them


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 16, 2016)

chilango said:


> How and why are some voices more persuasive than others though?
> 
> I don't think it can be dismissed as simply "superior knowledge ". A frequent complaint from people unable to support their opinions in the face of argument is that, coupled with some sort of of insinuation about heavy political tomes.
> 
> ...



It's always disheartening when people who describe themselves as "left" or "socialist", have no idea what either term means, and mistake Blairite neoliberal centrist ameliorationism for both the preceding terms.


----------



## bimble (Nov 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Please don't use quotation marks if you're not actually quoting verbatim (regardless of whether or not you use the quote function).


Yes, sorry, was sloppy.
You said


Athos said:


> I think you're right; it's important for class-based analysis to be seen to encompas race, gender etc., etc., rather than exclude it.  To acknowledge the importance of those issues to class, and vice versa. To show focus on class as a win/win, rather than a zero sum game.


(which i liked a lot).


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yes, sorry, was sloppy.
> You said
> 
> (which i liked a lot).


Ta. No probs.


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> Thanks, i think. Will come back tomorrow if that's ok and have a go at answering this.



BTW, did you have any more thoughts on this?


----------



## bimble (Nov 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> BTW, did you have any more thoughts on this?


Yep.. If I try to answer it honestly though it would just me displaying the full extent of my cluelessness, which might actually be helpful in some way but still would feel worried it'll be taken the wrong way, as some sort of attack. If I have a beer in a couple of hours might have a go though, get over the shyness.


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2016)

Beer being the remedy for cluelessness.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yep.. If I try to answer it honestly though it would just me displaying the full extent of my cluelessness, which might actually be helpful in some way but still would feel worried it'll be taken the wrong way, as some sort of attack. If I have a beer in a couple of hours might have a go though, get over the shyness.


How about dishonestly?


----------



## bimble (Nov 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> How about dishonestly?


I could google copy & paste something and do an impression of someone who has got a clue (about what class really means and how it intersects with race and gender) but not really much point is there.
A few pages back there was discussion of how to bring about a feeling of solidarity by class across the boundaries of race & gender etc, what language what sort of movement might be able to do that. I think that's the context in which Athos asked me the question, so the only point in me trying to answer it would be to show the extent of the need for such a thing.


----------



## rekil (Nov 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Succinct.



He's a monumental freak.

 

Globalresearch link lol. 



A twitter search for "democratically elected" and anything to do with Syria unearths piles of this stinky ilk.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2016)

copliker said:


> He's a monumental freak.
> 
> View attachment 95630
> 
> ...


Appreciate the research & heads-up, and would certainly think twice before linking to him again. That said, I wasn't endorsing the authors world view, merely putting up a view representative of some discussion in the thread.


----------



## rekil (Nov 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Appreciate the research & heads-up, and would certainly think twice before linking to him again. That said, I wasn't endorsing the authors world view, merely putting up a view representative of some discussion in the thread.


No probs, I don't want to drag the thread OT but going through it, that annoyed me. His twitter avi and bio should set a few alarms off though - the absolute state of it. "Geopolitics, imperialism, (with focus on US/UK foreign policy)"


----------



## treelover (Nov 17, 2016)

> * Don’t be divided by Trump and Brexit: minorities are part of the working class *
> 
> Identity politics have always been part of the struggle. Those who claim there’s a backlash only seek to drive us apart
> 
> ...



Owen joins the debate.

but no comments allowed on his article.


----------



## treelover (Nov 17, 2016)

> The old left, dominated as it was (and still is) by straight white men, long echoed this sentiment. The class struggle comes first; after the revolution, we’ll sort out everything else. It was an approach that women and minorities rebelled against. The working class was full of diversity, they argued, and class oppression was not the only injustice that many working-class people suffered.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 18, 2016)

A Trump-voting shithead in action:

Where's the coffee? Customer screams ‘Trump’ at Starbucks’ employee in viral video


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 22, 2016)

2016 in the UK.



> A Tesco store in Edinburgh has been accused of discriminating against state school children by making them queue outside while private school pupils are allowed to come and go as they please.
> 
> It has been claimed that students from Boroughmuir high school, near the city centre, were made to stand behind a barrier by Tesco staff and only allowed to enter their local store in small groups. But students at the nearby George Watson’s college were not stopped at all.


----------



## treelover (Nov 22, 2016)

One of those young working class lads went on to be very successful, one of the others said he held no animosity to the toffs.

Still a very powerful image.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 22, 2016)

The sort of article that just falls short of wishing there were less white males and less straight males .if only that was the solution.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 23, 2016)

Terry Christian off the telly is not mincing his words on Facebook tonight......


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 23, 2016)

cuppa tee said:


> Terry Christian off the telly is not mincing his words on Facebook tonight......
> 
> 
> View attachment 96034



lol, if there's one thing social media's good for, its capturing the really ill-advised, pissed up rants of sort of famous people.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2016)

He can fuck off with that. I've been called thick and racist and I can't help the way some middle class folks are. BUT I AINT NEVER BEEN CALLED NO SCAB.*

*matewan paraphrasing ftw


----------



## mather (Nov 23, 2016)

cuppa tee said:


> Terry Christian off the telly is not mincing his words on Facebook tonight......
> 
> 
> View attachment 96034



I have never heard of this cunt until you posted that link. Really, I mean who gives a shit what this overrated loser thinks.


----------



## mather (Nov 23, 2016)

That said, I can't really complain about all these Remoaners acting like a bunch of special snowflakes and spoilt brats. It shows them up for who they really are and proves the old saying about scratching a liberal right. They truly are their own worst enemy and most of them are too stupid and cocooned in their bubble to even realise it.


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2016)

Did you really just use the word 'remoaner'?


----------



## mather (Nov 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> Did you really just use the word 'remoaner'?



Yes.


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2016)

Why?


----------



## mather (Nov 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> Why?



Why not, it's all they seem to do.


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2016)

also 'special snowflake'

why have you adopted the rhetoric of the far right?


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 23, 2016)

its from fight club.

tyler durden.


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2016)

It's used exclusively by macho right wingers nowadays though


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 23, 2016)

Evidently not.  Remoaner has been used on here a fair bit, too.


----------



## mather (Nov 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> also 'special snowflake'
> 
> why have you adopted the rhetoric of the far right?



Lol, since when did those terms become the exclusive property of the far right?

I used those terms because they are accurate and spot on. Are you really going to try and argue that Remain voters have not spent the entire time since June moaning and whining about the result of the referendum and doing everything in their power to try and stop Brexit from happening, just as spoilt brats do when things don't totally go their way.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 23, 2016)

it would be the same whichever way it had gone, let's not kid ourselves


----------



## killer b (Nov 24, 2016)

They became the exclusive property of the far right since they started being used exclusively by people with far right politics. 

It's not that difficult is it?


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 24, 2016)

I have seen 'special snowflake' used in a non-right context, taking the piss re the alienating result of the Oppression Olympics played by liberal members of the middle class who no matter the situation _have_ to be the centre of attention, and in my view deliberately construct an exclusionary politics only they are fully qualified to understand and direct. As fucking usual.


----------



## Humberto (Nov 24, 2016)

remoaners is tory press staple


----------



## Raheem (Nov 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> also 'special snowflake'
> 
> why have you adopted the rhetoric of the far right?



if you're gonna vote with them, may as well learn the lingo.


----------



## mather (Nov 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> They became the exclusive property of the far right since they started being used exclusively by people with far right politics.
> 
> It's not that difficult is it?



I first came across the term Remoaner on this forum, it has been used by many others on here, same for special snowflake.


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 24, 2016)

The proles know not what they do.  They are in need of the correct political education.


----------



## killer b (Nov 24, 2016)

I don't know anything about mather's class background. I've only come across those words used by far right types and in tory rags though. I think it's fair enough to question why someone would use them.


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 24, 2016)

I wasn't talking specifically about his background.  I first came across Remoaner on here, used by ItWillNeverWork.


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 24, 2016)

Maybe you need to step back from your police role for a while?


cuppa tee said:


> Terry Christian off the telly is not mincing his words on Facebook tonight......
> 
> 
> View attachment 96034



Just another one to be worked to death.


----------



## mather (Nov 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't know anything about mather's class background. I've only come across those words used by far right types and in tory rags though. I think it's fair enough to question why someone would use them.



If you must know I'm a Marxist and my politics are communist. During the last election I voted TUSC.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 24, 2016)

The Remoans - a Ramones tribute act entirely made up of Libdems and grauniad commentaritwats.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 24, 2016)

mather said:


> I first came across the term Remoaner on this forum, it has been used by many others on here, same for special snowflake.


That the Right are using this term is one thing, your point that it's been used around here since Brexit by many leave voters is no 
 secret... It's all over here, as an insult.


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> That the Right are using this term is one thing, your point that it's been used around here since Brexit by many leave voters is no
> secret... It's all over here, as an insult.



The Remoaner's are alright, we are leaving and they ain't best pleased.  Its the Remainiacs, the ones who seem hell bent on undoing what happened in June, they are the problem, they are as dangerous and potentially damaging as the "full speed ahead and damn the torpedos" hard Brexiteers.


----------



## billy_bob (Nov 24, 2016)

mather said:


> all these Remoaners acting like a bunch of special snowflakes and spoilt brats



I agree with your wider point that the reaction to the Leave vote has exposed just how illiberal a lot of liberals are.

But the attitude summed up in these particular words is hypocritical too. The type of people who now say this kind of thing whenever anyone who voted Remain dares to refuse to just change their mind now that the vote's over -- for DECADES before they won this particular vote it's been impossible to read/see almost any media for more than a few minutes without some of them popping up to complain about how they were the silent majority whose voices were never listened to.

One of the interesting aspects of the Leave vote, I thought, was to see how the people who always talked like that would react once they'd explicitly got what they asked for in something this important. The reaction of quite a lot of them, it seems, is 'it's not enough that I got my way - I now demand that you agree with me about it and that I never have to hear another word of dissent on the subject'.

So overall I'm not sure either the 'winners' or the 'losers' are managing not to behave like spoilt brats about the whole thing.


----------



## billy_bob (Nov 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The Remoans - a Ramones tribute act entirely made up of Libdems and grauniad commentaritwats.



"Hey! Ho! Let's not go!"


----------



## andysays (Nov 24, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> "Hey! Ho! Let's not go!"



Gabba Gabba Stay!!!


----------



## inva (Nov 24, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> One of the interesting aspects of the Leave vote, I thought, was to see how the people who always talked like that would react once they'd explicitly got what they asked for in something this important. The reaction of quite a lot of them, it seems, is 'it's not enough that I got my way - I now demand that you agree with me about it and that I never have to hear another word of dissent on the subject'.


in what way have they explicitly got what they wanted? we haven't left, for one thing, but more widely than that, exactly the kind of silencing that people complain of has taken place. Whatever the 'leave vote' was or might have become, after the initial shock there has been a rapid process of closing off. Whether that can hold together for too long remains to be seen, and the way things have played out so far has enabled it to be framed as 'remoaners' when it is part of a wider consensus across the remain and leave camps of the ruling class, but its easy to see why that resonates.


----------



## billy_bob (Nov 24, 2016)

"Now I wanna sniff some glue,
Now I wanna stay in the EU"


----------



## billy_bob (Nov 24, 2016)

inva said:


> in what way have they explicitly got what they wanted? we haven't left, for one thing, but more widely than that, exactly the kind of silencing that people complain of has taken place. Whatever the 'leave vote' was or might have become, after the initial shock there has been a rapid process of closing off. Whether that can hold together for too long remains to be seen, and the way things have played out so far has enabled it to be framed as 'remoaners' when it is part of a wider consensus across the remain and leave camps of the ruling class, but its easy to see why that resonates.



OK, 'ostensibly' would be a better word than 'explicitly'. And I did start the post you've partially quoted by suggesting that I agree that a big part of the 'rapid process of closing off' is 'liberals' showing their true colours.

_In my experience_ the Leave voters putting across the 'remoaners... you lost... shut up and deal with it' line are generally _not _the Leave voters of the left who have sensible objections to the neo-liberal cabal of the EU, but the Leave voters who 'want their country back', with the murky combination of justifiable anger at their powerlessness, and less honourable scapegoating of minorities and insular nationalism, that that entails. And I don't agree those people have always been silenced - over the last couple of decades they've very often been able to find platforms to loudly claim that immigration is out of control, political correctness has gone mad, human rights is just about putting Bulgarians before 'our own', etc. And they've seen those views reflected in mainstream policy of both Labour and Tory govts (not obviously with any significant effect on the global order, but with very significant effects in terms of punitive approaches to, and reinforcing negative perceptions of, immigration, human rights, etc.)

Before I get shouted down for caricaturing the Leave camp I'll stress again that I have never tarred all Leave voters as 'thick racists' (and have fallen out with quite a number of supposedly PC right-on 'friends' who have done so since June), and even those who _were _motivated by bigotry or nationalism in voting Leave, in my view alongside those less pleasant motivations generally still have reasonable complaints about the results of globalisation/neo-liberalism which, as I think you're alluding to, haven't been heeded.

Hope that's a bit more nuanced


----------



## Wilf (Nov 24, 2016)

andysays said:


> Gabba Gabba Stay!!!


I wanna be buried in an EU cemetery


----------



## inva (Nov 24, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> OK, 'ostensibly' would be a better word than 'explicitly'. And I did start the post you've partially quoted by suggesting that I agree that a big part of the 'rapid process of closing off' is 'liberals' showing their true colours.
> 
> _In my experience_ the Leave voters putting across the 'remoaners... you lost... shut up and deal with it' line are generally _not _the Leave voters of the left who have sensible objections to the neo-liberal cabal of the EU, but the Leave voters who 'want their country back', with the murky combination of justifiable anger at their powerlessness, and less honourable scapegoating of minorities and insular nationalism, that that entails. And I don't agree those people have always been silenced - over the last couple of decades they've very often been able to find platforms to loudly claim that immigration is out of control, political correctness has gone mad, human rights is just about putting Bulgarians before 'our own', etc. And they've seen those views reflected in mainstream policy of both Labour and Tory govts (not obviously with any significant effect on the global order, but with very significant effects in terms of punitive approaches to, and reinforcing negative perceptions of, immigration, human rights, etc.)
> 
> ...


The gap between what has 'ostensibly' happened and what has actually happened is kind of key though, isn't it? Ostensibly, the people have spoken and their voices have been heard. Ostensibly Theresa May and co are listening to us now, just like Cameron's 'workers party' was. We know that hasn't happened, they know it hasn't happened. In the same way that anti immigrant policies by the state are specifically intended not to address people's greivances but to keep them alive and make them useful - that's not really being listened to or having a voice.

We can generally say these complaints about PC and all that have a basis in the reality of people's experience which is why they are so resilient against the deluge of liberal 'facts' etc, but does the fact that the bourgeois media such as the Mail use elements of this experience, narrows it down, and repurposes it, really mean we can say ordinary people have a voice there? The closing off is to take what can be made use of for capital and erase what is threatening to it.

I'm not sure how much we're actually disagreeing on this, but thought it worth emphasising at least.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 24, 2016)

Once again, random use of the term "liberal" creates confusion. Americans and the Internet.... The proto alt right of the early Internet made the term popular as a pejorative to describe socially liberal, economic centrists in America. The fringe left in the UK, wanting to distance themselves from the British centre left, eagerly adopted the term.

Consequently it now makes only vague sense (an ideal fit for the fringe left). Especially when suddenly the centre left are supposed to justify their "liberal" credentials. In the context of the referendum, it doesn't help anyones understanding.

Capital punishment would be a better example of the hypocrisy/paradox. Centrists have long opposed it, while upholding a belief in democracy (capital punishment being clearly popular).

As for coining a new term "remoaner".. What is the point other than to create a slogan to troll with? There's no intellectual content. It illuminates nothing and takes the discussion nowhere. It's the political equivalent of writing band names on the front of your exercise book.


----------



## killer b (Nov 24, 2016)

It hasn't been coined here either, that's the point I was making - it was coined by the tory press, and using it uncritically is allowing them to set the terms of the debate.


----------



## billy_bob (Nov 24, 2016)

inva said:


> The gap between what has 'ostensibly' happened and what has actually happened is kind of key though, isn't it? Ostensibly, the people have spoken and their voices have been heard. Ostensibly Theresa May and co are listening to us now, just like Cameron's 'workers party' was. We know that hasn't happened, they know it hasn't happened. In the same way that anti immigrant policies by the state are specifically intended not to address people's greivances but to keep them alive and make them useful - that's not really being listened to or having a voice.
> 
> We can generally say these complaints about PC and all that have a basis in the reality of people's experience which is why they are so resilient against the deluge of liberal 'facts' etc, but does the fact that the bourgeois media such as the Mail use elements of this experience, narrows it down, and repurposes it, really mean we can say ordinary people have a voice there? The closing off is to take what can be made use of for capital and erase what is threatening to it.
> 
> I'm not sure how much we're actually disagreeing on this, but thought it worth emphasising at least.



What has actually happened _so far_, anyway. My view is still (for now) that we will, eventually, leave. People who wanted to leave will get what they wanted in that sense - although whether by doing so they'll achieve what they imagined they'd achieve is a different matter.


----------



## rekil (Nov 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The Remoans - a Ramones tribute act entirely made up of Libdems and grauniad commentaritwats.


_Unfortunately there's no stoppin' the cretins from votin'_


----------



## Wilf (Nov 24, 2016)

copliker said:


> _Unfortunately there's no stoppin' the cretins from votin'_




'Gabba, Gabba, we accept EU, we accept EU one of us - No Borders!'


----------



## Wilf (Nov 24, 2016)

'Beat on the Brit, Beat on the Brit, Beat on the Brit with a Precariat'


----------



## rekil (Nov 24, 2016)

Rock'N'Roll Independent School And Oxbridge


----------



## Wilf (Nov 24, 2016)

"_I'm friends with the President
I'm friends with the Pope
We're all making a fortune
Selling Daddy's dope in an internal market that guarantees the free movement of goods, capital, services and people"._


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2016)

Humberto said:


> remoaners is tory press staple



Yes, I think that term comes with a troubling undertone. Implicit is the notion that, once an democratic outcome is effected through a majoritarian system, those in the minority are under some sort of obligation to shut up.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yes, I think that term comes with a troubling undertone. Implicit is the notion that, once an democratic outcome is effected through a majoritarian system, those in the minority are under some sort of obligation to shut up.


There is a strong current of this. So much "if X wins then I'll leave" or "we won, too bad - if you don't like it then leave". 

Fucking politics. It's so depressing that everyone is so fucking stupid and small minded. 

Alien invasion or artificial intelligence take over is our only hope.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Maybe you need to step back from your police role for a while?
> 
> 
> Just another one to be worked to death.



You fucking liberal! 

Smear him with honey, nail him by the scrotum to a wooden floor, then set dump a wasp's nest on him.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> You fucking liberal!
> 
> Smear him with honey, nail him by the scrotum to a wooden floor, then set dump a wasp's nest on him.


Enjoy it while you can:
UK to censor online videos of 'non-conventional' sex acts


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2016)

Idaho said:


> There is a strong current of this. So much "if X wins then I'll leave" or "we won, too bad - if you don't like it then leave".
> 
> Fucking politics. It's so depressing that everyone is so fucking stupid and small minded.
> 
> Alien invasion or artificial intelligence take over is our only hope.


AI isn't helping, just creating self reinforcing bubbles.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 24, 2016)

gosub said:


> AI isn't helping, just creating self reinforcing bubbles.



they've taken over already?


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> they've taken over already?


Click here for the AI apocalypse (brought to you by Facebook) | Robert Smith


----------



## two sheds (Nov 24, 2016)

gosub said:


> Click here for the AI apocalypse (brought to you by Facebook) | Robert Smith



Good and interesting article but

you promised aliens


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 24, 2016)

Idaho said:


> . The fringe left in the UK, wanting to distance themselves from the British centre left, eagerly adopted the term.


this is completely wrong btw- commies have been using liberal as a descriptor since easily 1900 if not a few years before.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> this is completely wrong btw- commies have been using liberal as a descriptor since easily 1900 if not a few years before.


Liberal has been used as a political term for over a hundred years but lets not let facts get in the way.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The Remoans - a Ramones tribute act entirely made up of Libdems and grauniad commentaritwats.



Ba-aby I luv luv, I luv only EU...


----------



## Idaho (Nov 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> this is completely wrong btw- commies have been using liberal as a descriptor since easily 1900 if not a few years before.


It meant something very different in 1900! I don't think many Lloyd George voters cooked quinoa and went to yoga.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

Idaho said:


> It meant something very different in 1900! I don't think many Lloyd George voters cooked quinoa and went to yoga.


What do you think it meant in 1900?


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 24, 2016)

The U-KK Took My Baby Away


----------



## rekil (Nov 24, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> The U-KK Took My Baby Away


The U-KK Took The Help Away


----------



## chilango (Nov 24, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> The U-KK Took My Baby Away



The UK(K) took my Brie away.


----------



## chilango (Nov 24, 2016)

One for the hate fuelled, anti-east European migrant, racists that make up the Brexit vote obviously...

_"Beat on the b(o)rat with a baseball bat"_


----------



## andysays (Nov 24, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> The U-KK Took My Baby Away



I was trying to think of one based on that song earlier

"The UKIP Took My EU Citizenship Away" doesn't quite work


----------



## NoXion (Nov 24, 2016)

"Remainiacs" sounds like the worst Warner Brothers cartoon series _ever_.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 24, 2016)

andysays said:


> I was trying to think of one based on that song earlier
> 
> "The UKIP Took My EU Citizenship Away" doesn't quite work




"I Fought Farage, and Farage Won"


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> It hasn't been coined here either, that's the point I was making - it was coined by the tory press, and using it uncritically is allowing them to set the terms of the debate.



I don't see the divide as being as simple as "tory press".   Times, Telegraph, poss FT - Soft Brexit,  All tabloids - its all about the immigration innit: Sun,Mail,Express Hard Brexit, Mirror Remoan.  Guardian, BBC -Remaniacs.


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2016)

NoXion said:


> "Remainiacs" sounds like the worst Warner Brothers cartoon series _ever_.



thats like saying worst vintage of Krug


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 24, 2016)

Idaho said:


> It meant something very different in 1900! I don't think many Lloyd George voters cooked quinoa and went to yoga.


it means the same as it did then and the mockery of social accoutrements associated with the tradition today is irrelevant. I've mocked anarchos using the lazy 'smelly dogs on strings dreadlocks' sort of stuff before, it doesn't mean anarchist is now that by definition. It has a precise meaning and the reaction of liberals to being called so is also as fluff as when thick right wingers use it to describe anything left of pinochet. The reason why when socialists use it is to describe a distinct socio-politcal tradition it is taken as insult between leftists is because any sane person who calls themselves a socialists would abhor what that blood soaked tradition proved capable of. It's an insult to intelligence and morality in that context. Its not even an insult in those terms, its a description of someones politics. I'd take badly to being called liberal. Call yourself a liberal and it's a-ok cos thats what it is, liberalism is accepted as the good guys. Call yourself socialist and you are meant to apologise for the holodomor and the katyn massacre. 


I don't know why this bristling (not you particularly) over the correct use of the word has become so contentious recently, I can only assume its cos of brexit and trump.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 25, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> it means the same as it did then and the mockery of social accoutrements associated with the tradition today is irrelevant. I've mocked anarchos using the lazy 'smelly dogs on strings dreadlocks' sort of stuff before, it doesn't mean anarchist is now that by definition. It has a precise meaning and the reaction of liberals to being called so is also as fluff as when thick right wingers use it to describe anything left of pinochet. The reason why when socialists use it is to describe a distinct socio-politcal tradition it is taken as insult between leftists is because any sane person who calls themselves a socialists would abhor what that blood soaked tradition proved capable of. It's an insult to intelligence and morality in that context. Its not even an insult in those terms, its a description of someones politics. I'd take badly to being called liberal. Call yourself a liberal and it's a-ok cos thats what it is, liberalism is accepted as the good guys. Call yourself socialist and you are meant to apologise for the holodomor and the katyn massacre.
> 
> 
> I don't know why this bristling (not you particularly) over the correct use of the word has become so contentious recently, I can only assume its cos of brexit and trump.


It's an interesting and complicated business, political labels. My issue with it is that it all quickly becomes tribal. At which point the frontal cortex is deactivated and its limbic system all the way. 

Liberal as opposed to illiberal, is surely a good thing. Liberal in this sense is tolerant and permissive. I would consider myself liberal in that sense. 

Of course there is liberal as in centrist and mildly reforming/placating of the worst excesses of capitalism - but siding with capitalists when the chips are down. I can see why such people (both in power and in support) are viewed so dimly by leftists. 

My issue with that is that I am a leftist but also a reformist (in that I am anti revolutionary). There is a wide spectrum of reformist, that would all be called liberal by some revolutionaries and be called revolutionary by some centrist. 

The right is a broad movement because it triggers a fairly consistent emotional response. The left is an archipelago of unaffiliated and mutually hostile groups who start from an intellectual position but then drop into the same emotional response pitfalls.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 25, 2016)

Idaho said:


> My issue with that is that I am a leftist but also a reformist (in that I am anti revolutionary). There is a wide spectrum of reformist, that would all be called liberal by some revolutionaries and be called revolutionary by some centrist.


what say ye about the good ship corbyn? I can't in good conscience vote labour and it is supposed to be party not leader we vote for.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 25, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> what say ye about the good ship corbyn? I can't in good conscience vote labour and it is supposed to be party not leader we vote for.



Holed below the waterline?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 25, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Holed below the waterline?


Mutiny on the Bounty


----------



## andysays (Nov 25, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Mutiny on the Bounty



Carry On Cruising


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 25, 2016)

Rime of the Ancient Mariner, with Toe Nibbler as the Albatross-killing narrator

_''God save thee, ancient Mariner,
From the fiends that plague thee thus! 
Why look'st thou so?''
...with my cross-bow I shot the Albatross. _


----------



## Idaho (Nov 25, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> what say ye about the good ship corbyn? I can't in good conscience vote labour and it is supposed to be party not leader we vote for.


It's like having a lifetime of being promised a chocolate bar, and all this time being either given a dried turd or a muesli bar. Corbyn is probably a stale bourbon biscuit. 

But that's politics, and that's one of the problems I can't reconcile. We all say that we won't play the game because the rules are bent and everyone else cheats - as if we can wait it out until some magic changes it all.


----------



## Anju (Nov 25, 2016)

Looks like there could be a change of tactics, from stupid to stinky.

Brexit Vote Could Have Seen Remain Win If 'Only People Who Changed Underpants Daily Voted' | The Huffington Post


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 25, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Mutiny on the Bounty



Popularity would surge if Corbyn and McDonnell put on a pirate themed panto.

McDonnell - 'Aha me hearties, 'tis that blaggard Cap'n Farage! We'll keel-haul the scoundrel til Davy Jones take his soul!'
Corbyn - 'Why are pirates called 'pirates'?'
McDonnell - Why so matey?
Corbyn - Because they aaaarrrgghh.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 25, 2016)

"Prosseco you say? You'll take this fine sparkling English Blanc de Blancs 2019 and like it!"


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 25, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> And yet it'll be the least privileged under the boot, as it ever was.



Indeed. Was the Russian peasant better off under the tyranny of the Czar, or the tyranny of the Bolsheviks?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 25, 2016)

Idaho said:


> It meant something very different in 1900! I don't think many Lloyd George voters cooked quinoa and went to yoga.



And Lloyd George himself was too busy selling honours to bother about that sort of thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 25, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Indeed. Was the Russian peasant better off under the tyranny of the Czar, or the tyranny of the Bolsheviks?


The tyranny of the Bolsheviks.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 25, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Indeed. Was the Russian peasant better off under the tyranny of the Czar, or the tyranny of the Bolsheviks?


That's not too difficult to answer. Social and economic mobility increased massively over the first couple of decades. Literacy rates increased and a number of other measures improved. Russia went from a medieval feudal society, to an industrial one.


----------



## mather (Nov 25, 2016)

Idaho said:


> That's not too difficult to answer. Social and economic mobility increased massively over the first couple of decades. Literacy rates increased and a number of other measures improved. Russia went from a medieval feudal society, to an industrial one.



Quite right. I would also like to add that it was CPSU members who suffered the most during the Great Purges and they tended to be concentrated in urban areas. Rural areas were actually one of the safer places to be during the Great Purges.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 25, 2016)

Idaho said:


> That's not too difficult to answer. Social and economic mobility increased massively over the first couple of decades. Literacy rates increased and a number of other measures improved. Russia went from a medieval feudal society, to an industrial one.



Indeed. And went to a state of tyranny. We are stressing about the Regulatory Powers Bill, to to the poor fuckers of the USSR, it would seem quite liberal.


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2016)

Wasn't it already a tyranny?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 25, 2016)

killer b said:


> Wasn't it already a tyranny?


 Yes, but a better tyranny. See what horrible paths lesser-evilism leads you down...


----------



## Idaho (Nov 25, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Indeed. And went to a state of tyranny. We are stressing about the Regulatory Powers Bill, to to the poor fuckers of the USSR, it would seem quite liberal.


Yeah it was no picnic. But you have to take into account that the ussr was being converted from a feudal, agrarian society to a modern industrial one. Something that took 100 years in britain, with no shortage of tyranny, brutality and misery. They did it in 20. And within 40 had sent the first man into space.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 25, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, but a better tyranny. See what horrible paths lesser-evilism leads you down...


What other choice is there? Whatever system or leader a society adopts, it will only be, at best, someone's lesser evil.

Although you could tell everyone that it's the perfect society and kill/imprison/exile anyone who says otherwise. That works for a while.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 25, 2016)

On Political Violence @ A Glance What the Iranian Revolution Can Teach Us About the US Presidential Election


> ...
> But this shift also reflected a class divide. Wealthier Iranians were convinced that they stood for progress and development. The urban poor and the rural masses, however, still saw their world through the lens of traditional morality. Religious virtue, established gender norms, and a social order based on Iranian values of generosity, humility, and family honor were unquestioned. These groups were anxious and uncertain about the changes going on around them, and longed for a simpler time in which right and wrong were clearly laid out before them.
> 
> These two forces in Iranian society viewed each other with a mixture of fear, contempt, and outright hostility. The urban, wealthy elite saw the traditional classes as being ignorant and backwards. The word for villager—_dahati—_became synonymous with stupid.  Religion and clerical authorities were seen as relics of an bygone era. For their part, the less-educated, conservative elements of society saw the so-called modernizers as immoral, decadent, and arrogant. They were the _gharbzadeh—_those intoxicated with the West. They had abandoned centuries of tradition – not to mention their Islamic faith – and turned their backs on the values of their grandparents.
> ...


Mr Brexit++


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2016)

Idaho said:


> Yeah it was no picnic. But you have to take into account that the ussr was being converted from a feudal, agrarian society to a modern industrial one. Something that took 100 years in britain, with no shortage of tyranny, brutality and misery. They did it in 20. And within 40 had sent the first man into space.


Yeh. Ahistorical bollocks. 20. 40. pity you're forgetting the industrialisation which occurred prior to 1917, or doesn't that count.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 25, 2016)

I am sorry to anger you so much on this very sensitive and personal topic Pickman's model. All I can do is extend my heart felt apologies.

I'm more than happy to be corrected on errors or omissions in my historical analysis. But rather than turning everything into a pride filled bunfight, could we keep it, if not civil, at least just slightly frosty - rather than angry Internet ranting.


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 25, 2016)

mather said:


> Quite right. I would also like to add that it was CPSU members who suffered the most during the Great Purges and they tended to be concentrated in urban areas. Rural areas were actually one of the safer places to be during the Great Purges.



The terror wasn't just the purging of the bureaucracy though, it was much wider.  I've already posted this a few times before, but to give some scale to the bloodshed the majority of the nearly three quarters of a million people who were executed in the short space of two years (according to official records, and when the 'mass operations' were in full swing) were 'ordinary' people.  Plenty more over the years were sent to prisons or forced labour camps.



Idaho said:


> That's not too difficult to answer. Social and economic mobility increased massively over the first couple of decades. Literacy rates increased and a number of other measures improved. Russia went from a medieval feudal society, to an industrial one.



Social mobility increased in a short space of time, with opportunities created by the industrialisation drive but what did it consist of?  And for the peasant majority in the 1930s it was forced dispossession and eventual transformation into either rural or urban proletarians.  Massive upheaval, mass violence and awful poverty.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2016)

Idaho said:


> I am sorry to anger you so much on this very sensitive and personal topic Pickman's model. All I can do is extend my heart felt apologies.
> 
> I'm more than happy to be corrected on errors or omissions in my historical analysis. But rather than turning everything into a pride filled bunfight, could we keep it, if not civil, at least just slightly frosty - rather than angry Internet ranting.


Yeh. now, the industrialisation which took place under the romanovs...


----------



## Idaho (Nov 25, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> The terror wasn't just the purging of the bureaucracy though, it was much wider.  I've already posted this a few times before, but to give some scale to the bloodshed the majority of the nearly three quarters of a million people who were executed in the short space of two years (according to official records, and when the 'mass operations' were in full swing) were 'ordinary' people.  Plenty more over the years were sent to prisons or forced labour camps.
> 
> 
> 
> Social mobility increased in a short space of time, with opportunities created by the industrialisation drive but what did it consist of?  And for the peasant majority in the 1930s it was forced dispossession and eventual transformation into either rural or urban proletarians.  Massive upheaval, mass violence and awful poverty.


Oh ffs. I was only trying to provide some countervailing material to the orthodoxy that the Russian revolution and the Bolsheviks produced mindless crushing tyranny on a previously noble and just system where happy well fed peasants doffed their hats to honourable aristocrats. I'm the last person in the world to glory in the revolution.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2016)

Idaho said:


> Oh ffs. I was only trying to provide some countervailing material to the orthodoxy that the Russian revolution and the Bolsheviks produced mindless crushing tyranny on a previously noble and just system where happy well fed peasants doffed their hats to honourable aristocrats. I'm the last person in the world to glory in the revolution.


Who has claimed the ancien regime noble and just?


----------



## Idaho (Nov 25, 2016)

This is like monty python's argument sketch.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 25, 2016)

no it's not





well someone had to ...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 26, 2016)

> It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
> 
> Mark Twain


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. now, the industrialisation which took place under the romanovs...


You tell us about it. 

Not saying you're wrong. You're very clearly not wrong - Russia started industrialising in the late 19th C. But to what extent does Idaho's error in not acknowledging this make his subsequent reasoning wrong? So the question here is 'how had industrialisation in Russia progressed by 1917, and what challenges did it still face when the dust settled after the civil war'? How did Stalin's policies advance industrialisation, and what was the base he was working from? How did that base compare to the bases in other countries, and how did his progress compare?

If you're going to nitpick, at least enter a positive contribution.


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> Oh ffs. I was only trying to provide some countervailing material to the orthodoxy that the Russian revolution and the Bolsheviks produced mindless crushing tyranny on a previously noble and just system where happy well fed peasants doffed their hats to honourable aristocrats. I'm the last person in the world to glory in the revolution.



I'm not aware of this orthodoxy.  Perhaps one of the 'good' things about the 1930s was that you could get your boss killed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You tell us about it.
> 
> Not saying you're wrong. You're very clearly not wrong - Russia started industrialising in the late 19th C. But to what extent does Idaho's error in not acknowledging this make his subsequent reasoning wrong? So the question here is 'how had industrialisation in Russia progressed by 1917, and what challenges did it still face when the dust settled after the civil war'? How did Stalin's policies advance industrialisation, and what was the base he was working from? How did that base compare to the bases in other countries, and how did his progress compare?
> 
> If you're going to nitpick, at least enter a positive contribution.


I did. I pointed out his description of Russian/Soviet industrialisation omitted everything prior to 1917. it's not like Russia had no prior industrialisation - but it is frequently forgotten. but as subsequent posts showed Idaho needs to return to the history books before continuing to contribute to this thread


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> This is like monty python's argument sketch.


No, this is not contradiction. you submit a thesis and you should expect it to be challenged


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

There are people on the right that will acknowledge no good coming from the Russian revolution. That the whole process and its aftermath was retrograde and destructive. 

The idea of getting your boss killed might sound very punk rock - but must have been terrible. The vindictiveness, the scores settled, the blackmail.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> No, this is not contradiction.



Can be.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Can be.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> No, this is not contradiction. you submit a thesis and you should expect it to be challenged


You and butchersapron are as one in this regard. You plot up on these threads and take pot shots without really risking a positive contribution. Inevitably any comment made in a short post on a complex topic is going to be riven with simplifications, oversights and errors. The interesting thing is to discuss and enlighten.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> any comment made in a short post on a complex topic is going to be riven with simplifications, oversights and errors. The interesting thing is to discuss and enlighten.


Yes. but it is not inevitable that the errors need be egregious


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> You and butchersapron are as one in this regard. You plot up on these threads and take pot shots without really risking a positive contribution. Inevitably any comment made in a short post on a complex topic is going to be riven with simplifications, oversights and errors. The interesting thing is to discuss and enlighten.


What the duck has this  to do with me? I've not once posted about this ridiculous little cul de sac. Why on earth would I bother with this infantile view of history? Long ago decided it's not worth my time.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

This particular thread didn't include you. But the dynamic and trajectory is reminiscent. 

I have no idea why a slight digression has turned into a full derail. Oh yeah.. It's urban and its p&p.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> Oh ffs. I was only trying to provide some countervailing material to the orthodoxy that the Russian revolution and the Bolsheviks produced mindless crushing tyranny on a previously noble and just system where happy well fed peasants doffed their hats to honourable aristocrats. I'm the last person in the world to glory in the revolution.


But in the first rank for posting nonsense about the romanovs. who has said Russia under the romanovs was just and noble etc?


----------



## Libertad (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> The idea of getting your boss killed might sound very punk rock - but must have been terrible. The vindictiveness, the scores settled, the blackmail.



No stomach for the struggle then?


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> But in the first rank for posting nonsense about the romanovs. who has said Russia under the romanovs was just and noble etc?


You did. You are obsessed with them and you love them. Your favourite historical reference is Disney's Anastasia.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> No, this is not contradiction. you submit a thesis and you should expect it to be challenged



Yes it is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> There are people on the right that will acknowledge no good coming from the Russian revolution. That the whole process and its aftermath was retrograde and destructive.


But what do you think





> The idea of getting your boss killed might sound very punk rock - but must have been terrible. The vindictiveness, the scores settled, the blackmail.


The blackmail?


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

Libertad said:


> No stomach for the struggle then?


None at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Yes it is.


two sheds does it better than you


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> You did. You are obsessed with them and you love them. Your favourite historical reference is Disney's Anastasia.


Come back rebel warrior all is forgiven


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> None at all.


But you do like a lie


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> But what do you thinkThe blackmail?


You want me to advance an opinion? And yet I have only 10 minutes or so while I eat breakfast. And I want to check a few other threads, and Facebook. So any comment I make is going to be brief, general, and have ample room for a tedious sniper to take numerous pot shots.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> This particular thread didn't include you. But the dynamic and trajectory is reminiscent.
> 
> I have no idea why a slight digression has turned into a full derail. Oh yeah.. It's urban and its p&p.


Amazing. At least that's your method laid bare. If you post on urban you're justified in bringing me into any old shit.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> But you do like a lie


Yes I make up lies about the Russian revolution. It's a hobby of mine.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Amazing. At least that's your method laid bare. If you post on urban you're justified in bringing me into any old shit.


I'm in love with you butchersapron. And in my unrequited frustration I lash out. I'm sorry. I can change.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> You want me to advance an opinion? And yet I have only 10 minutes or so while I eat breakfast. And I want to check a few other threads, and Facebook. So any comment I make is going to be brief, general, and have ample room for a tedious sniper to take numerous pot shots.


You mean it would be as riddled with errors as your previous posts on this thread


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> Yes I make up lies about the Russian revolution. It's a hobby of mine.


Another lie


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You mean it would be as riddled with errors as your previous posts on this thread


It's an inevitable side effect of advancing opinions and theories - they are often wrong. Whereas the inevitable side effect of never offering a theory or opinion while picking apart others, is that people will assume you are on the autistic spectrum.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> It's an inevitable side effect of advancing opinions and theories - they are often wrong. Whereas the inevitable side effect of never offering a theory or opinion while picking apart others, is that people will assume you are on the autistic spectrum.



Nice. What's truly astonishing is that you think this sub gcse stuff that you've posted is a positive contribution that _enlightens_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> It's an inevitable side effect of advancing opinions and theories - they are often wrong. Whereas the inevitable side effect of never offering a theory or opinion while picking apart others, is that people will assume you are on the autistic spectrum.


Fuck your opinions and theories, i'm thinking of your sketch of the historiography of the Russian revolution, and the lies you've told about me

Your honesty not in doubt, you're dishonest to your bones


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Nice. What's truly astonishing is that you think this sub gcse stuff that you've posted is a positive contribution that _enlightens_.


I remember asking you once before to post a link to *any* thread where you have offered a theory, opinion or speculation. Essentially any time you have done the opposite of sniping and policing other's contributions. I'll ask again - please post a link.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Fuck your opinions and theories, i'm thinking of your sketch of the historiography of the Russian revolution, and the lies you've told about me
> 
> Your honesty not in doubt, you're dishonest to your bones


Yeah I'm a terrible liar. I make up these cruel lies about the Russian revolution.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> I remember asking you once before to post a link to *any* thread where you have offered a theory, opinion or speculation. Essentially any time you have done the opposite of sniping and policing other's contributions. I'll ask again - please post a link.


Astonishing. Utterly bizarre.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Astonishing. Utterly bizarre.


It may seem bizarre to you. But most people will understand.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> Yeah I'm a terrible liar. I make up these cruel lies about the Russian revolution.


Not so much cruel lies as utterly stupid lies like your nonsense that the orthodox view counterpoints the nice romanovs against the nasty bolsheviks.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

This is hilarious. Why are you so emotionally invested in such an abstract point? 

In a historical discussion, normal people would characterise it as errors or foolishness. They wouldn't call it "lies".


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> It may seem bizarre to you. But most people will understand.


Yes, most people will agree that i have never said anything or put a point of view across on here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You tell us about it.
> 
> Not saying you're wrong. You're very clearly not wrong - Russia started industrialising in the late 19th C. But to what extent does Idaho's error in not acknowledging this make his subsequent reasoning wrong? So the question here is 'how had industrialisation in Russia progressed by 1917, and what challenges did it still face when the dust settled after the civil war'? How did Stalin's policies advance industrialisation, and what was the base he was working from? How did that base compare to the bases in other countries, and how did his progress compare?
> 
> If you're going to nitpick, at least enter a positive contribution.



Tsarist Russia did indeed start a mass industrialisation drive in the late 19th century - the uptick in bond issues for loans from London, New York and, especially, Paris are proof of that, as was the massive growth in transport infrastructure that laid the basis for further industrialisation post-Romanoff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> This is hilarious. Why are you so emotionally invested in such an abstract point?
> 
> In a historical discussion, normal people would characterise it as errors or foolishness. They wouldn't call it "lies".


History is not abstract. normal people don't feel the need to tell untruths about it as you do.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

Maybe they are errors in my understanding rather than sinister lies. Or maybe that is a lie.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> Maybe they are errors in my understanding rather than sinister lies. Or maybe that is a lie.


Your relationship with the truth, your understanding, your knowledge: all found wanting


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> Maybe they are errors in my understanding rather than sinister lies. Or maybe that is a lie.



I'd recommend Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers" and Adam Tooze's "Deluge" as excellent - and extremely interesting - primers on the pre- and post-WW1 economic history of the major participant nation-states in the war.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Your relationship with the truth, your understanding, your knowledge: all found wanting


You don't get it, do you? There is nothing to be gained from your type of policing of p&p. You are like a socially inept pub bore who's single joy is to find fault and mark it out. You don't see this as in any way problematic to useful and functional discussion. You have no awareness of how it makes p&p a forum dominated and controlled by a small clique of male urban lifers. I don't have anything against you personally. I'm really not one for board spats or grudges. I would just love to see a politics board that wasn't policed by political train spotting androids who killed off discussions while all the while thinking that they were furthering the cause of truth.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd recommend Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers" and Adam Tooze's "Deluge" as excellent - and extremely interesting - primers on the pre- and post-WW1 economic history of the major participant nation-states in the war.


Thanks. I'll take a look to see if they are on audio book.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> You don't get it, do you? There is nothing to be gained from your type of policing of p&p. You are like a socially inept pub bore who's single joy is to find fault and mark it out. You don't see this as in any way problematic to useful and functional discussion. You have no awareness of how it makes p&p a forum dominated and controlled by a small clique of male urban lifers. I don't have anything against you personally. I'm really not one for board spats or grudges. I would just love to see a politics board that wasn't policed by political train spotting androids who killed off discussions while all the while thinking that they were furthering the cause of truth.


Yes. time and time and fucking time again you bring this back to ad hominem attacks (socially inept pub bore) in between lies (eg your Disney anastasia post) while ignoring the points being made eg pre-1917 Russian industrialisation, and of course your utterly historically illiterate bollocks about nice romanovs v nasty bolsheviks. this isn't me or butchers being cunts but your bringing a pisspoor dog's dinner of a case (in its loosest sense) to this thread and showing a complete inability to defend it.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

Yes you are right. I retract all comments and request forgiveness.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> Yes you are right. I retract all comments and request forgiveness.


I'd prefer it if you'd just say who said the romanovs were grand


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

No one. I made it up to get attention. I'm very very sorry.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> the inevitable side effect of never offering a theory or opinion while picking apart others, is that people will assume you are on the autistic spectrum.



Wow


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> There are people on the right that will acknowledge no good coming from the Russian revolution. That the whole process and its aftermath was retrograde and destructive.
> 
> The idea of getting your boss killed might sound very punk rock - but must have been terrible. The vindictiveness, the scores settled, the blackmail.



Nothing to do with 'punk rock'. Or the other things you mentioned, except perhaps the behaviour of bosses (or Little Stalins, as they were known).  I thought you knew about Stalinist industrialisation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> No one. I made it up to get attention. I'm very very sorry.


Yeh. well maybe you've learned a lesson and maybe you haven't.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

I could offer to fellate you to prove my sincerity. Do you like fellatio?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> I could offer to fellate you to prove my sincerity. Do you like fellatio?


I think you've managed to prove your insincerity in a manner few if any urbanites would have expected


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> I could offer to fellate you to prove my sincerity. Do you like fellatio?


Thank you for your positive enlightening posts.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

Feel free to bring the thread back on topic with an insightful post.


----------



## Cid (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> Feel free to bring the thread back on topic with an insightful post.



You know you're not coming back from this right? You've just solidly painted yourself into the cunt corner.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 26, 2016)

I've always styled myself more of a twat than a cunt. But I can show some flexibility.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 26, 2016)

Idaho said:


> You don't get it, do you? There is nothing to be gained from your type of policing of p&p.





Idaho said:


> Once again, random use of the term "liberal" creates confusion. Americans and the Internet.... The proto alt right of the early Internet made the term popular as a pejorative to describe socially liberal, economic centrists in America. The fringe left in the UK, wanting to distance themselves from the British centre left, eagerly adopted the term.
> 
> Consequently it now makes only vague sense (an ideal fit for the fringe left). Especially when suddenly the centre left are supposed to justify their "liberal" credentials. In the context of the referendum, it doesn't help anyones understanding.
> 
> Capital punishment would be a better example of the hypocrisy/paradox. Centrists have long opposed it, while upholding a belief in democracy (capital punishment being clearly popular).


At least PMs "policing" is usual correct unlike the rubbish above


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 12, 2016)

At the risk of re-awakening a monster... I have never called people stupid over voting Brexit or making other decisions I disagree with. However are we allowed to say that people were conned? This isn't particularly a class issue, or not a working/middle class one. I work in a public sector organisation, my part of it is probably about 50/50 working/middle class. The vast majority are non-unionised, and appear to agree that 'there is no money' to pay them more or make up for the real terms pay cuts of the last 8 years. This is what people being conned looks like. Is it patronising to point out they are being conned? How to talk about it?

This post inspired by this article: Notes from Non-Existence | Mute



> In other words, the high-end flagfuckers _look forward to intensifying the punishment of the pro- and anti-Brexit parts of the proletariat alike_. This is why it's fair to say that working-class voters for Little England _were_ elaborately conned, but – contrary to _Guardian_-circulated slander – are _not _stupid. As Iceberg Slim taught, the ‘mark’ in a _really long white con_ may end up fooled, but s/he should not be treated as a fool. And who wouldn’t take an apparently cost-free chance to humiliate Cameron and Osborne? The costs will come later but _they would have come anyway_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> At the risk of re-awakening a monster... I have never called people stupid over voting Brexit or making other decisions I disagree with. However are we allowed to say that people were conned? This isn't particularly a class issue, or not a working/middle class one.


so being conned isn't a class issue even though the people who are doing the conning are apparently ruling class. top work then brainaddict.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> so being conned isn't a class issue even though the people who are doing the conning are apparently ruling class. top work then brainaddict.


I deliberately clarified that it wasn't a middle/working class issue - the rest was implied. But you can just read the bits of my post that raise your ire if you like.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> I deliberately clarified that it wasn't a middle/working class issue - the rest was implied. But you can just read the bits of my post that raise your ire if you like.


yes. it is not a middle / working class issue that the conning is done by the ruling class. like it's not a working or middle class issue that 'the ruling ideas of every age are the ideas of the ruling class' or 'the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles'


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

Mute of course taking money from the EU and the arts council.

State funded autonomy.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

I have no idea what that mute piece is saying.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

I don't like it though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I have no idea what that mute piece is saying.


it is a mute piece. it is not intended to be understood.


----------



## JimW (Dec 12, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> At the risk of re-awakening a monster... I have never called people stupid over voting Brexit or making other decisions I disagree with. However are we allowed to say that people were conned? This isn't particularly a class issue, or not a working/middle class one. I work in a public sector organisation, my part of it is probably about 50/50 working/middle class. The vast majority are non-unionised, and appear to agree that 'there is no money' to pay them more or make up for the real terms pay cuts of the last 8 years. This is what people being conned looks like. Is it patronising to point out they are being conned? How to talk about it?
> 
> This post inspired by this article: Notes from Non-Existence | Mute


Not read the article but on the face of it saying conned falls down on the same thing as thick for me - people might have voted out under some mistaken impressions but why are they more dupes than the plenty who voted in without really knowing what the EU is and our membership of it entails/approves? Basically it's just a truism about how voting works in a bourgeois democracy isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

JimW said:


> Not read the article but on the face of it saying conned falls down on the same thing as thick for me - people might have voted out under some mistaken impressions but why are they more dupes than the plenty who voted in without really knowing what the EU is and our membership of it entails/approves? Basically it's just a truism about how voting works in a bourgeois democracy isn't it?


But only one type of people are conned.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

or connable.


----------



## treelover (Dec 12, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> At the risk of re-awakening a monster... I have never called people stupid over voting Brexit or making other decisions I disagree with. However are we allowed to say that people were conned? This isn't particularly a class issue, or not a working/middle class one. I work in a public sector organisation, my part of it is probably about 50/50 working/middle class. The vast majority are non-unionised, and appear to agree that 'there is no money' to pay them more or make up for the real terms pay cuts of the last 8 years. This is what people being conned looks like. Is it patronising to point out they are being conned? How to talk about it?
> 
> This post inspired by this article: Notes from Non-Existence | Mute



Like your comment, but not the article.


----------



## treelover (Dec 12, 2016)

A close relative from the N.E has recently graduated from Durham, 35,000 in debt, thought he would get a graduate entry post, but is stacking shelves in a supermarket, he accepts it, has he been conned? Time was a pool of educated people with little or poor employment prospects led to social upheaval, what changed?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> A close relative from the N.E has recently graduated from Durham, 35,000 in debt, thought he would get a graduate entry post, but is stacking shelves in a supermarket, he accepts it, has he been conned? Time was a pool of educated people with little or poor employment prospects led to social upheaval, what changed?


You should point out to him the graduate premium works out at a pound an hour over the course of a 40 year career

Interested to see you thinking about things I was talking about years back.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 12, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> At the risk of re-awakening a monster... I have never called people stupid over voting Brexit or making other decisions I disagree with. However are we allowed to say that people were conned?


Much of the "conned" commentary seems basically "look at this obvious lie that was never true and nobody believed, Brexiteers were conned by this, poor sods, it wasn't their fault, they're like children". Maybe a few people believed in "£350m a week for the NHS" but I guarantee that most people didn't (why would they? I thought this was supposed to be all about cynicism about politicians) and at most thought that Brexit would mean more money would be available for domestic spending, which isn't an unjustified position, though you then need to consider who's going to be making the spending decisions.

I voted remain, but I don't feel that I have anything in common with that approach.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> Time was a pool of educated people with little or poor employment prospects led to social upheaval, what changed?


A good question. I've been reading Richard Hoggart's The Uses of Literacy, which would probably interest you. It's mostly about the replacement of working class culture with an ersatz and twisted version of it, through the mass media. I'd say if you have little culture that's truly your own, you have not much of a base to fight from. 

NB. This is not a full answer, just a partial thought based on current reading.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> what changed?


£35k in debt, yer man's not going to rock the boat is he?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Much of the "conned" commentary seems basically "look at this obvious lie that was never true and nobody believed, Brexiteers were conned by this, poor sods, it wasn't their fault, they're like children". Maybe a few people believed in "£350m a week for the NHS" but I guarantee that most people didn't (why would they? I thought this was supposed to be all about cynicism about politicians) and at most thought that Brexit would mean more money would be available for domestic spending, which isn't an unjustified position, though you then need to consider who's going to be making the spending decisions.
> 
> I voted remain, but I don't feel that I have anything in common with that approach.


I agree about the specific claims, but the vaguer 'let's take back control' did seem to resonate at a gut level. All the polling I've seen lends support to that, as does speaking to the few people I know (London bubblista!!) who voted leave, such as my parents.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 12, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Much of the "conned" commentary seems basically "look at this obvious lie that was never true and nobody believed, Brexiteers were conned by this, poor sods, it wasn't their fault, they're like children". Maybe a few people believed in "£350m a week for the NHS" but I guarantee that most people didn't (why would they? I thought this was supposed to be all about cynicism about politicians) and at most thought that Brexit would mean more money would be available for domestic spending, which isn't an unjustified position, though you then need to consider who's going to be making the spending decisions.


I think the con being referred to was bigger than that. It was "Vote leave and there will be more jobs and your standard of living and wages/conditions can start going up again." There were hundreds of ways of promising this, using a mixture of the particular lies you mention, and bigger lies, open or implied, about what would happen if we restricted migration, or got rid of regulation. The overall message was strong I think, and was believed by many people. 

The Lexiters on here mostly knew this wasn't the case of course - or not in the short to medium term (I get the sense many of them think the situation can be retrieved in the longer term). But millions were, I think, fairly conned.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> I think the con being referred to was bigger than that. It was "Vote leave and there will be more jobs and your standard of living and wages/conditions can start going up again." There were hundreds of ways of promising this, using a mixture of the particular lies you mention, and bigger lies, open or implied, about what would happen if we restricted migration, or got rid of regulation. The overall message was strong I think, and was believed by many people.
> 
> The Lexiters on here mostly knew this wasn't the case of course - or not in the short to medium term (I get the sense many of them think the situation can be retrieved in the longer term). But millions were, I think, fairly conned.


Nothing fair about it


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree about the specific claims, but the vaguer 'let's take back control' did seem to resonate at a gut level. All the polling I've seen lends support to that, as does speaking to the few people I know (London bubblista!!) who voted leave, such as my parents.


What does resonate a gut level mean? It's obv intended to differentiate from a head level. 

Same fucking game.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> I think the con being referred to was bigger than that. It was "Vote leave and there will be more jobs and your standard of living and wages/conditions can start going up again." There were hundreds of ways of promising this, using a mixture of the particular lies you mention, and bigger lies, open or implied, about what would happen if we restricted migration, or got rid of regulation. The overall message was strong I think, and was believed by many people.
> 
> The Lexiters on here mostly knew this wasn't the case of course - or not in the short to medium term (I get the sense many of them think the situation can be retrieved in the longer term). But millions were, I think, fairly conned.


There is also a very broad analysis that can be done on a referendum, which can be shorn of its content, more or less, which says that the 'change' option will be selected far more often by those who feel badly served by the current system and so have little stake in keeping it, and 'no change' will be selected by those who feel the current system has its merits and have something to lose from changing it. 

This applies to all of us, too, so I'm not pointing over there and saying 'you were conned': it informs the gut reaction to things upon which we build our intellectual justifications.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> I think the con being referred to was bigger than that. It was "Vote leave and there will be more jobs and your standard of living and wages/conditions can start going up again." There were hundreds of ways of promising this, using a mixture of the particular lies you mention, and bigger lies, open or implied, about what would happen if we restricted migration, or got rid of regulation. The overall message was strong I think, and was believed by many people.
> 
> The Lexiters on here mostly knew this wasn't the case of course - or not in the short to medium term (I get the sense many of them think the situation can be retrieved in the longer term). But millions were, I think, fairly conned.


After all that waffle it's the same shit. Thick people, thinking with their gut. It never ever ends no matter how nice and understanding  you try to be.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What does resonate a gut level mean? It's obv intended to differentiate from a head level.
> 
> Same fucking game.


See my next post. I firmly include myself in this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree about the specific claims, but the vaguer 'let's take back control' did seem to resonate at a gut level.


I presume you refer to the mythical 'arsequake'


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is also a very broad analysis that can be done on a referendum, which can be shorn of its content, more or less, which says that the 'change' option will be selected far more often by those who feel badly served by the current system and so have little stake in keeping it, and 'no change' will be selected by those who feel the current system has its merits and have something to lose from changing it.
> 
> This applies to all of us, too, so I'm not pointing over there and saying 'you were conned': it informs the gut reaction to things upon which we build our intellectual justifications.


Some of us can't. We stop at the gut. We're over represented in all sorts of categories.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is also a very broad analysis that can be done on a referendum, which can be shorn of its content, more or less, which says that the 'change' option will be selected far more often by those who feel badly served by the current system and so have little stake in keeping it, and 'no change' will be selected by those who feel the current system has its merits and have something to lose from changing it.
> 
> This applies to all of us, too, so I'm not pointing over there and saying 'you were conned': it informs the gut reaction to things upon which we build our intellectual justifications.


I would like to see you build an intellectual justification.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is also a very broad analysis that can be done on a referendum, which can be shorn of its content, more or less, which says that the 'change' option will be selected far more often by those who feel badly served by the current system and so have little stake in keeping it, and 'no change' will be selected by those who feel the current system has its merits and have something to lose from changing it.
> 
> This applies to all of us, too, so I'm not pointing over there and saying 'you were conned': it informs the gut reaction to things upon which we build our intellectual justifications.


This isn't an analysis and it's not one made by those supporting the thickos dun it argument. That includes you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This isn't an analysis and it's not one made by those supporting the thickos dun it argument. That includes you.


You could have the grace to admit you'd misunderstood me. But hey ho.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You could have the grace to admit you'd misunderstood me. But hey ho.


If i thought i had i would gave said so. Immediately and without bottling it.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 12, 2016)

On the subject of being conned.

Couldn't it be said that the middle-class liberals who still, after the ravages of austerity waged across Southern Europe, believe that the EU exists to uphold some vague form of social democracy both abroad and in Britain have been 'conned' far more than a Leave voter who is fully aware of the limits of our own politicians but was consciously throwing a spanner in the works of our political system?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree about the specific claims, but the vaguer 'let's take back control' did seem to resonate at a gut level. All the polling I've seen lends support to that, as does speaking to the few people I know (London bubblista!!) who voted leave, such as my parents.





Brainaddict said:


> I think the con being referred to was bigger than that. It was "Vote leave and there will be more jobs and your standard of living and wages/conditions can start going up again." There were hundreds of ways of promising this, using a mixture of the particular lies you mention, and bigger lies, open or implied, about what would happen if we restricted migration, or got rid of regulation. The overall message was strong I think, and was believed by many people.
> 
> The Lexiters on here mostly knew this wasn't the case of course - or not in the short to medium term (I get the sense many of them think the situation can be retrieved in the longer term). But millions were, I think, fairly conned.



I thought a lot of people I talked to before the vote who were voting brexit were wrong about how things would play out. That was about it. They weren't _conned_ by anything that had been said in the campaign; nobody even mentioned any of the bullshit that was floating around, and if I ever referred to it they were pretty insulted that I might suggest they'd been influenced by that shit. (I mentioned it as an indication of what the post-referendum political result would be rather than what they believed, I'd like to say here, and I think that's been borne out.) That's why I can't get behind the "conned" thing.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> On the subject of being conned.
> 
> Couldn't it be said that the middle-class liberals who still, after the ravages of austerity waged across Southern Europe, believe that the EU exists to uphold some vague form of social democracy both abroad and in Britain have been 'conned' far more than a Leave voter who is fully aware of the limits of our own politicians but was consciously throwing a spanner in the works of our political system?


Depends what they thought. I got equally irritated by people who didn't think I was aware of the various actions of the various E-bodies.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 12, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Depends what they thought. I got equally irritated by people who didn't think I was aware of the various actions of the various E-bodies.



Yes, I think that does sound like it would be irritating but at the same time there is no media driven narrative that Remain voters were conned into voting against their own interests etc


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes, I think that does sound like it would be irritating but at the same time there is no media driven narrative that Remain voters were conned into voting against their own interests etc


Not a mainstream one, no, which is why I'm not amazingly annoyed. It was only ever on a personal conversation level.

It's not like the reaction to it has, or was ever going to have, anything to do with why anyone voted for or against, anyway. Voted to remain: you approve of the existing capitalist system though are probably a bit racist. Voted to leave: you approve of capitalism but maybe want it reformed a bit to have more local people doing it and are also really racist.


----------



## General Veers (Dec 12, 2016)

The leave the European Union vote (I hate the term Brexit) has brought out some xenophobes but it has also flushed out a lot of so-called lefties as well.  Their narrative that all leave voters are racist and as thick as pig shit for siding with racists shows their own personal prejudices, not the perceived ones of over 17 million people.  Have a read of Jon Rogers' Unison blog (easily searchable).  His contempt for the working class is palatable, almost as much as his slavish adherence to the neo-liberal EU and all the shitting on workers that it does. 

We don't need Eddie Izzard and all those other patronising twats whining to make leave voters reconsider their decision, in fact it reinforces it.  This vote for me has thrown up a whole layer of people on the left that have shown their true colours.  The people who they claim to stand up for have rejected what they think is right so they come up with all kinds of theories and throw around lots of insults to justify their own arrogance.  Some of the biggest leave margins came from former mining areas in the North, people who are no strangers to class struggle and standing up to the full force of the state.

To see academic lefties whose main occupational hazzard is a paper cut go to town on working class people in current and former manual occupations is sickening and does not bode well for the future of socialist politics.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 12, 2016)

General Veers said:


> To see academic lefties whose main occupational hazzard is a paper cut go to town on working class people in current and former manual occupations is sickening and does not bode well for the future of socialist politics.



Or, indeed, the future. So much of British politics has just become a crap slanging match between right-wing Brexiters and right-wing Remainers.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2016)

General Veers said:


> The leave the European Union vote (I hate the term Brexit) has brought out some xenophobes but it has also flushed out a lot of so-called lefties as well.  Their narrative that all leave voters are racist and as thick as pig shit for siding with racists shows their own personal prejudices, not the perceived ones of over 17 million people.  Have a read of Jon Rogers' Unison blog (easily searchable).  His contempt for the working class is palatable, almost as much as his slavish adherence to the neo-liberal EU and all the shitting on workers that it does.
> 
> We don't need Eddie Izzard and all those other patronising twats whining to make leave voters reconsider their decision, in fact it reinforces it.  This vote for me has thrown up a whole layer of people on the left that have shown their true colours.  The people who they claim to stand up for have rejected what they think is right so they come up with all kinds of theories and throw around lots of insults to justify their own arrogance.  Some of the biggest leave margins came from former mining areas in the North, people who are no strangers to class struggle and standing up to the full force of the state.
> 
> To see academic lefties whose main occupational hazzard is a paper cut go to town on working class people in current and former manual occupations is sickening and does not bode well for the future of socialist politics.



When people march against the elected govt of the UK; would you say they are prejudiced against the wishes of the electorate?


----------



## General Veers (Dec 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> When people march against the elected govt of the UK; would you say they are prejudiced against the wishes of the electorate?


No, not at all.  The Tories getting in on 20-odd percent isn't a resounding majority of the electorate.  I've marched against the elected government many times but it was more for the issues and policies they were pursuing although I do miss on occasion the jovial outpouring of rage that went with "Maggie Maggie Maggie, Out Out Out".

This vote to leave the EU was different.  There were no seats, no votes wasted, no multitude of candidates or options.  It was a simple leave or stay where every vote counted.  A simple majority from one side beat a minority from another (albeit a big one).  Those that didn't vote and are now whining, well it's tough titty, everyone had a chance to participate and for the first time in years I felt my vote actually counted.  

It's the manouvering, the throwing the toys out of the pram and finally putting down their traditional constituency by a big chunk of the left that I find distasteful.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2016)

General Veers said:


> No, not at all.  The Tories getting in on 20-odd percent isn't a resounding majority of the electorate.  I've marched against the elected government many times but it was more for the issues and policies they were pursuing although I do miss on occasion the jovial outpouring of rage that went with "Maggie Maggie Maggie, Out Out Out".
> 
> This vote to leave the EU was different.  There were no seats, no votes wasted, no multitude of candidates or options.  It was a simple leave or stay where every vote counted.  A simple majority from one side beat a minority from another (albeit a big one).  Those that didn't vote and are now whining, well it's tough titty, everyone had a chance to participate and for the first time in years I felt my vote actually counted.
> 
> It's the manouvering, the throwing the toys out of the pram and finally putting down their traditional constituency by a big chunk of the left that I find distasteful.


You could see this during the campaign,when the guardian said in as many words that people voting leave were thick racist chavs


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2016)

General Veers said:


> No, not at all.  The Tories getting in on 20-odd percent isn't a resounding majority of the electorate.  I've marched against the elected government many times but it was more for the issues and policies they were pursuing although I do miss on occasion the jovial outpouring of rage that went with "Maggie Maggie Maggie, Out Out Out".
> 
> This vote to leave the EU was different.  There were no seats, no votes wasted, no multitude of candidates or options.  It was a simple leave or stay where every vote counted.  A simple majority from one side beat a minority from another (albeit a big one).  Those that didn't vote and are now whining, well it's tough titty, everyone had a chance to participate and for the first time in years I felt my vote actually counted.
> 
> It's the manouvering, the throwing the toys out of the pram and finally putting down their traditional constituency by a big chunk of the left that I find distasteful.



Ok, I get that. The outcome was agreeable to you but what if it had gone the other way - would you not have any dissent in you?


----------



## General Veers (Dec 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You could see this during the campaign,when the guardian said in as many words that people voting leave were thick racist chavs


And a lot of lefties lapped it up.  The pragmatic ones will alter their strategy, the pompous ones will lose influence and damage the cause they claim to be fighting for.


----------



## General Veers (Dec 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Ok, I get that. The outcome was agreeable to you but what if it had gone the other way - would you not have any dissent in you?


Against the EU and specific policies probably but not against 17 million of my fellow citizens and I certainly wouldn't get all high and mighty with them.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2016)

General Veers said:


> And a lot of lefties lapped it up.  The pragmatic ones will alter their strategy, the pompous ones will lose influence and damage the cause they claim to be fighting for.



Fair enough.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2016)

General Veers said:


> Against the EU and specific policies probably but not against 17 million of my fellow citizens and I certainly wouldn't get all high and mighty with them.



Would you get high and mighty with those who voted to remain?


----------



## JimW (Dec 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> £35k in debt, yer man's not going to rock the boat is he?


Recall reading something about the history of social housing that said similar, it was well noted that the highest level of secure social tenancies in the 70s coincided with more industrial militancy even if it wasn't the only factor, but people running to pay a mortgage or jacked up private rents think twice before risking their job.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Would you get high and mighty with those who voted to remain?


Yes. This what you've done then white boy?


----------



## General Veers (Dec 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Would you get high and mighty with those who voted to remain?


No, (I know plenty who did vote remain), just the ones who call me stupid, label me racist and assume they know best because I voted for something different to them after weighing up the arguments in a rational manner.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2016)

General Veers said:


> No, (I know plenty who did vote remain), just the ones who call me stupid, label me racist and assume they know best because I voted for something different to them after weighing up the arguments in a rational manner.


Well, I know what it's like to be called stupid & I freely admit, I did over react on the day of the results. At the same time, I don't believe everyone who rejected the outcome were patronising twats whining. Some had rational concerns, just like the leave side.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 12, 2016)

Calling people racist scum was a little bit of an overreaction.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Calling people racist scum was a little bit of an overreaction.



As was wishing me dead; wouldn't you say?


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> As was wishing me dead; wouldn't you say?



What was it you said about my relationship with my partner?  Also, what was it you said to me even though I didn't even vote.  Things you have never acknowledged nor apologised for.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> What was it you said about my relationship with my partner?  Also, what was it you said to me even though I didn't even vote.  Things you have never acknowledged nor apologised for.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


>



What was it you said again?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


>


Making it all about yourself again.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 12, 2016)

Hi LLETSA.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> What was it you said again?



Dunno; I've moved on. You clearly haven't, chum


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Dunno; I've moved on. You clearly haven't, chum



You know, you're just feeling a bit a prat about it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> You know, you're just feeling a bit a prat about it.



I believe I was talking to another poster & freely admitted I over reacted. Obviously, this chimed with you and you needed an indirect affirmation that wishing other posters dead is perhaps not the right way to get your point across.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I believe I was talking to another poster & freely admitted I over reacted. Obviously, this chimed with you and you needed an indirect affirmation that wishing other posters dead is perhaps not the right way to get your point across.



No, you were talking directly to me.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> No, you were talking directly to me.



Er, no:



And then you decided to wade in. Again.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Hi LLETSA.



Think you'll find Jurrihahay has been banned, old son.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I believe I was talking to another poster & freely admitted I over reacted. Obviously, this chimed with you and you needed an indirect affirmation that wishing other posters dead is perhaps not the right way to get your point across.


This is not at all true.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Er, no:
> 
> View attachment 97035
> 
> And then you decided to wade in. Again.



The earlier thread.  You know that.  Anyway, this is becoming a derail but I thought it needed bringing up.  I freely admitted and apologised for my out of order reaction/conduct.  Your behaviour was disgraceful, and not just to me.


----------



## treelover (Dec 12, 2016)

General Veers said:


> The leave the European Union vote (I hate the term Brexit) has brought out some xenophobes but it has also flushed out a lot of so-called lefties as well.  Their narrative that all leave voters are racist and as thick as pig shit for siding with racists shows their own personal prejudices, not the perceived ones of over 17 million people.  Have a read of Jon Rogers' Unison blog (easily searchable).  His contempt for the working class is palatable, almost as much as his slavish adherence to the neo-liberal EU and all the shitting on workers that it does.
> 
> We don't need Eddie Izzard and all those other patronising twats whining to make leave voters reconsider their decision, in fact it reinforces it.  This vote for me has thrown up a whole layer of people on the left that have shown their true colours.  The people who they claim to stand up for have rejected what they think is right so they come up with all kinds of theories and throw around lots of insults to justify their own arrogance.  Some of the biggest leave margins came from former mining areas in the North, people who are no strangers to class struggle and standing up to the full force of the state.
> 
> To see academic lefties whose main occupational hazzard is a paper cut go to town on working class people in current and former manual occupations is sickening and does not bode well for the future of socialist politics.



Those who began campaigning against New labour's welfare reforms were shocked and baffled by the lack of support from the left, unions, etc, these attacks on brexiters goes some way to understanding why this happened/


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> Those who began campaigning against New labour's welfare reforms were shocked and baffled by the lack of support from the left, unions, etc, these attacks on brexiters goes some way to understanding why this happened/


You dislike socialists as we've seen on numerous occasions 

Perhaps if you'd worked with those who were already campaigning on the auld tories' welfare reforms in the 1990s you might have found more sympathy and allies

Next


----------



## Gromit (Dec 12, 2016)

General Veers said:


> Some of the biggest leave margins came from former mining areas in the North, people who are no strangers to class struggle and standing up to the full force of the state.



This attitude cracks me right up. Its turkeys voting for Christmas. Their protest against the state is handing the state more power.

Power to cast off worker protections granted by European law. Power they will use to their greatest extent whilst blaming the economic turmoil created by Brexit as their excuse to completely abandon those protections and replace them with nothing. 

They'll use the 'we're all in it together' line when telling the working classes that they'll have to button down and work harder for the sake of the making Britain great again. But guess who'll see or the benefit? None of which will 'trickle down'.


----------



## treelover (Dec 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You dislike socialists as we've seen on numerous occasions
> 
> Perhaps if you'd worked with those who were already campaigning on the auld tories' welfare reforms in the 1990s you might have found more sympathy and allies
> 
> Next



Er, I did


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> Er, I did


Yeh but you haven't


----------



## General Veers (Dec 13, 2016)

Gromit said:


> This attitude cracks me right up. Its turkeys voting for Christmas. Their protest against the state is handing the state more power.
> 
> Power to cast off worker protections granted by European law. Power they will use to their greatest extent whilst blaming the economic turmoil created by Brexit as their excuse to completely abandon those protections and replace them with nothing.
> 
> They'll use the 'we're all in it together' line when telling the working classes that they'll have to button down and work harder for the sake of the making Britain great again. But guess who'll see or the benefit? None of which will 'trickle down'.


There you go, the same could be said for the remain lot, I voted to be shafted by one government instead of 28 with the possibility of doing something about it afterwards.

It's not leave/remain that I'm pissed off about, I've had loads of friendly debates in the boozer etc. with remain voters, leave ones and non-voters.  It's the sneering undercurrent of a lot of folk who are labelling the working class thick and not worthy of making decisions that affect our lives.  We need to be lead according to them because we're incapable of deciding what's good for us.  That's what I find disturbing.


----------



## chilango (Dec 13, 2016)

One thing I've noticed in my own conversations about this is that - if I may simplistically generalise for a moment - w/c voters were least likely to be "conned" as they didn't believe the promises/threats being made and were e a lot more cynical about any effect that their vote might have whilst m/c voters were more likely to connect their vote with the potential changes (for good or ill) being promised by the various campaigns.

Which might make sense as the politicians are used to targeting campaigns at the relatively small proportion of largely m/c swing voters in key marginals...and changes coming from election results tend to be noticed most by the m/c, results change the lot of the w/c (or the r/c for that matter) little.

I'm just speculating on the basis of a handful of conversations of course...


----------



## General Veers (Dec 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> One thing I've noticed in my own conversations about this is that - if I may simplistically generalise for a moment - w/c voters were least likely to be "conned" as they didn't believe the promises/threats being made and were e a lot more cynical about any effect that their vote might have whilst m/c voters were more likely to connect their vote with the potential changes (for good or ill) being promised by the various campaigns.
> 
> Which might make sense as the politicians are used to targeting campaigns at the relatively small proportion of largely m/c swing voters in key marginals...and changes coming from election results tend to be noticed most by the m/c, results change the lot of the w/c (or the r/c for that matter) little.
> 
> I'm just speculating on the basis of a handful of conversations of course...


You're right.  Not many politicians are addressing the actual concerns that lead to such a big leave vote in the North beyond saying they'll respect the result and this is mainly coming from Tory ones.  A lot of Labour MPs in the Northern constituencies still intend to go against the people who put them there and although UKIP won't do an SNP, it'll still bite Labour on the arse.

Look at Richmond though, the media are portraying that place as a barometer for the whole country and that's clearly bollocks.  Richmond is hardly home to people pissed off with austerity.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 13, 2016)

General Veers said:


> Look at Richmond though, the media are portraying that place as a barometer for the whole country and that's clearly bollocks.  Richmond is hardly home to people pissed off with austerity.



If it were, then it sadly wouldn't really serve as a barometer, would it? But I don't think the media used Richmond in that way. It was more a test of the we're-all-Brexiteers-now hypothesis,


----------



## emanymton (Dec 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> One thing I've noticed in my own conversations about this is that - if I may simplistically generalise for a moment - w/c voters were least likely to be "conned" as they didn't believe the promises/threats being made and were e a lot more cynical about any effect that their vote might have whilst m/c voters were more likely to connect their vote with the potential changes (for good or ill) being promised by the various campaigns.
> 
> Which might make sense as the politicians are used to targeting campaigns at the relatively small proportion of largely m/c swing voters in key marginals...and changes coming from election results tend to be noticed most by the m/c, results change the lot of the w/c (or the r/c for that matter) little.
> 
> I'm just speculating on the basis of a handful of conversations of course...


I read a book by Steven Rose years ago. He mentioned an alternative IQ test based on seeing through bullshit (I may be paraphrasing a little), in which the working class tended to score higher.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> One thing I've noticed in my own conversations about this is that - if I may simplistically generalise for a moment - w/c voters were least likely to be "conned" as they didn't believe the promises/threats being made and were e a lot more cynical about any effect that their vote might have whilst m/c voters were more likely to connect their vote with the potential changes (for good or ill) being promised by the various campaigns.



chilango
Were the people you chatted with equally sceptical towards the Remain 'Project Fear' bollocks as they were towards Leave's '£350m back to the NHS' bollocks though?

Genuine question (I admit I ask as someone who voted Remain myself, albeit with a *very* low level of enthusiasm).

Just asking, because for ages I've been a tad suspicious about selective scepticism during the referendum campaign. The Leave campaign leaders were just as much of a bunch of lying establishment  conmerchants as the Remain side (IMO), but the former lot had much more attractive tunes for some people.

And IMO, the Leave campaign had far more and louder RW media liars on their side. Plus underscrutiny from other parts of the media. Not that the Remain campaign was much scrutinised either, it was just that for me, Remain was more of a complacent, lazy and shit campaign.

ETA : apologies .... most of the above is moving away from your main point I think.


----------



## chilango (Dec 13, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> chilango
> Were the people you chatted with equally sceptical towards the Remain 'Project Fear' bollocks as they were towards Leave's '£350m back to the NHS' bollocks though?
> 
> Genuine question (I admit I ask as someone who voted Remain myself, albeit with a *very* low level of enthusiasm).
> ...



Short answer is "yes".

Again over simplifying, but w/c people I've chatted to about it tended to have few illusions that anything would actually happen regardless of the vote, to the point that (for example) one of the more vocal w/c leave voters I know didn't actually bother to vote in the end, shrugging and saying "it's not like it'll make any difference anyway will it? they'll just keep on doing what they want".

m/c voters I know  (both Remain and Leave) seemed, and continued to be, far more agitated about the whether what they'd been promised/threatened will happen. 


But like I said, it's purely anecdotal from a small sample, so should be taken with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Libertad (Dec 14, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I read a book by Steven Rose years ago. He mentioned an alternative IQ test based on seeing through bullshit (I may be paraphrasing a little), in which the working class tended to score higher.



Steve Rose posts on here occasionally.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 14, 2016)

General Veers said:


> There you go, the same could be said for the remain lot, I voted to be shafted by one government instead of 28 with the possibility of doing something about it afterwards.
> 
> It's not leave/remain that I'm pissed off about, I've had loads of friendly debates in the boozer etc. with remain voters, leave ones and non-voters.  It's the sneering undercurrent of a lot of folk who are labelling the working class thick and not worthy of making decisions that affect our lives.  We need to be lead according to them because we're incapable of deciding what's good for us.  That's what I find disturbing.



Also, there's sneering at those who voted to remain, "liberals" and so on. Maybe if there was less sneering all round and over reacting, we might find a common ground. And, as I said earlier, I was one of those who over reacted. Mea culpa.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 14, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Also, there's sneering at those who voted to remain, "liberals" and so on. Maybe if there was less sneering all round and over reacting, we might find a common ground. And, as I said earlier, I was one of those who over reacted. Mea culpa.



Good post. A better read than this daft deification of straight talking (white) working class folk.

It's a road to nowhere as most working class black or Asian people voted to remain. Are they less good at spotting BS? I very much doubt it.

There was no good answer to the question, because it was asked within the straitjacket of scarcity and insecurity that no simple answer breaks through.

We need a much better politic than hating liberals all day long.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 14, 2016)

Some of the most stupid people I've ever known were middle class with a comfortable life...


.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 14, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Some of the most stupid people I've ever known were middle class with a comfortable life...
> .



Yes. This demographic voted leave in droves, not because they felt the pinch, but because they simply like their piss kept on the boil.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 14, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Good post. A better read than this daft deification of straight talking (white) working class folk.
> 
> It's a road to nowhere as most working class black or Asian people voted to remain. Are they less good at spotting BS? I very much doubt it.
> 
> ...



Where is this deification?  And which posters have not included black and Asian wc? 

We need a much better politics than liberalism.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2016)

'the white working class' is a nasty little phrase that has become currency among commenteriat. From where I am stood there is no value in descibing the people you want to call racist so. Class is not colour, I've laboured alongside people of every hue. What does it matter? (in terms of work obvs) We all draw the same pittance for the same work etc.

we have a common cause and the endless navel gazing of liberals who wish to exclude class-or rather not exclude it but put it in a seperate box along with other comfortably defined boxes. Its not an identity group, capital doesn't care who unloads the lorries or picks the fruit. S'all labour to them.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Its not an identity group,


This is, again, at the core of the divide between class-based politics and liberalism, a divide that some insist doesn't exist.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 14, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Where is this deification?  And which posters have not included black and Asian wc?
> 
> We need a much better politics than liberalism.



I agree with your last point. Liberals want nice politics to exist alongside subjugation. Those nice values are liked by many people of every class, but won't work without real opposition to the marketisation of everything.

But white working class has been very much implied here - the liberals are not said to be sneering at minorities for the brexit vote, because minorities overwhelmingly didn't vote for it.

People who are put off left wing politics often cite that it appears hateful to them, they fear being seen as 'unsound'. This sneering at sneery 'liberals' (some of whom don't have a pot to piss in either) has limited value. It's a comfort only when no other argument is being won. Somehow all sides need joining against those with the power.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2016)

yes but we've see the 'compromise' of liberalism in its grotesque glory written across most of modern history.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> This is, again, at the core of the divide between class-based politics and liberalism, a divide that some insist doesn't exist.


every time I hear the tradition of Liberalism mentioned I see the face of Simon Sebag Montefiore in my head. He really is the smuggest example of its historical transformation into a byword for 'fair play and decency'  imo. Like the field was ever level


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 14, 2016)

Your earlier post was just an underhand, sideways  swipe at other unnamed posters by implying they are talking about only white people, and with some insulting caricature of the average (white) working class person being thick and narrow-minded.  Personally I have become far grumpier and sanguinary as I near middle age, and more and more convinced that only a violent revolution will radically overhaul society.  I probably won't live to see it, or before I end up getting killed in the process, but that's what I think.



DotCommunist said:


> yes but we've see the 'compromise' of liberalism in its grotesque glory written across most of modern history.



Nah, it's often not about compromise, which is linked to the soppy, nice and fluffy self-mythology after the theft, murder, famine, war, genocide etc has given it space.  It's about the strong doing as they please to the weak. Liberalism is a 'monster' of history.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Nah, it's often not about compromise, which is linked to the soppy, nice and fluffy self-mythology after the theft, murder, famine, war, genocide etc has given it space



well this is why the ' ' over the word compromise in my post mr bullet. The self mythologising of a truly evil doctrine given a virtuose face by those who didn't lose half their family to the irish famine for an example


----------



## Raheem (Dec 15, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Your earlier post was just an underhand, sideways  swipe at other unnamed posters by implying they are talking about only white people, and with some insulting caricature of the average (white) working class person being thick and narrow-minded.



People in this thread have been eulogising leave voters as acting out of some sort of special inaccessible wc wisdom. In case that's not just obvious bullshit, it is worth pointing out that it's a wisdom that seems to have largely evaded the non-white portion of the wc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 15, 2016)

Raheem said:


> People in this thread have been eulogising leave voters as acting out of some sort of special inaccessible wc wisdom


quote the eulogies to your myth


----------



## Raheem (Dec 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> w/c voters were least likely to be "conned" as they didn't believe the promises/threats being made and were e a lot more cynical about any effect that their vote might have whilst m/c voters were more likely to connect their vote with the potential changes (for good or ill) being promised by the various campaign





emanymton said:


> I read a book by Steven Rose years ago. He mentioned an alternative IQ test based on seeing through bullshit (I may be paraphrasing a little), in which the working class tended to score higher.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 15, 2016)

Raheem said:


> People in this thread have been eulogising leave voters as acting out of some sort of special inaccessible wc wisdom. In case that's not just obvious bullshit, it is worth pointing out that it's a wisdom that seems to have largely evaded the non-white portion of the wc.



I wouldn't appropriate the proletarian experience of the sixth bullet.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 15, 2016)

so, not eulogizing then. Not at all. Good-o Raheem


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 15, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> We need a much better politic than hating liberals all day long.



True , but if hating liberals isn't an essential component of this better politic it'll most likely not be better . And be a bit shit .


----------



## chilango (Dec 15, 2016)

Is that eulogising? Really?

Note also that neither of the quotes you posted mentioned "leave" voters.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> so, not eulogizing then. Not at all. Good-o Raheem



Close enough, IMO. But, in any case, why are you choosing to focus on the bit that doesn't matter?


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> Is that eulogising? Really?
> 
> Note also that neither of the quotes you posted mentioned "leave" voters.



The whole thread is based around 'views' of leave voters.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 15, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> True , but if hating liberals isn't an essential component of this better politic it'll most likely not be better . And be a bit shit .



Yes, but lots of really ordinary people also despaired of the views articulated by 'leave'. It's not just a commentariat thing.

Let's now play the ball, neo-liberalism and not the man.


----------



## chilango (Dec 15, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> The whole thread is based around 'views' of leave voters.



Is it?

I voted "remain" fwiw.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> The whole thread is based around 'views' of leave voters.


The views of leave voters or views of leave voters?


----------



## Akkadian (Dec 15, 2016)

General Veers said:


> It's not leave/remain that I'm pissed off about, I've had loads of friendly debates in the boozer etc. with remain voters, leave ones and non-voters.  It's the sneering undercurrent of a lot of folk who are labelling the working class thick and not worthy of making decisions that affect our lives.  We need to be lead according to them because we're incapable of deciding what's good for us.  That's what I find disturbing.



I can agree to a point, however, it's the inability to accept some of the causes of their concerns that led people to vote leave, was just not Europe alone and voting to leave the Union will not stop those concerns becoming reality. This stubborness not look at other causes really is exasperating and I can rather see how the lofty high handedness of remainers, holds its nose to those who voted leave, because leave simply does not want to engage.

I myself have always been strongly against free movement of labour, voted UKIP when residing in Runnymede etc.. However, in the last weeks saw a very real effort by 'vote leave' cavorting and mobilising people who hold rascits views, bottom of the barrel politics, views like this should be left under stones and should not be engaged. So I voted remain, after my entire adult life wanting to leave.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> Does it?
> 
> How many more "shock results" are we going to need to get this?


seems to be working very well for some people


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 29, 2016)

Many of you have probably seen this: another excellent piece by Kenan Malik. Same themes as usual, and many points already covered here and other threads. But worth reading for the way he structures the argument; an eloquent piece:

FROM THE END OF HISTORY TO 2016

"In the quarter of a century since Fukuyama wrote his essay, politics, particularly in the West, has indeed shifted away from ‘ideological struggle’ towards ‘the endless solving of technical problems’. [...] Politics has become less about competing visions of the kinds of society people want than a debate about how best to manage the existing political system, a question more of technocratic management rather than of social transformation."

[...]

"As a result of these changes there has opened up a new political faultline; not, as in the past, between left and right, but one between those who are at home in, or at least willing to accommodate to, this globalized post-ideological, world, and those who feel left out, dispossessed and voiceless."
"The left, no longer rooted in old-style class politics, responded to the new political terrain in one of two ways. The first was to look to bureaucratic or managerial means of creating a more progressive society, in a sense to grasp the Fukuyama argument that ideological struggle and idealism would have to ‘replaced by economic calculation [and] the endless solving of technical problems’."

[...]

"The second response to the challenge posed by the demise of class politics was to embrace ‘identity politics’. The roots of identity politics are long and reactionary".

[...]

"As the left has transformed itself through mangerialism and the politics of identity, many sections of the working class have found themselves politically voiceless at the very time their lives had become more precarious, as jobs have declined, public services been savaged, austerity imposed, and inequality on the rise. Far from helping create new mechanisms through which the working class could challenge economic marginalization and political voicelessness, many liberals, and many on the left, have come to see the working class as part of the problem."

[...]

"Having lost their traditional means through which to vent disaffection, and finding themselves despised by liberals and the left, many working class voters have themselves turned to the language of identity politics. The causes of the marginalization of working class communities are largely economic and political. But many have come to see that marginalization primarily as a _cultural_ loss. The very decline of the economic and political power of the working class and the weakening of labour organizations and social democratic parties, have helped obscure the economic and political roots of social problems. And as culture has become the medium through which social issues are refracted, so they, too, have turned to the language of identity to express their discontent".

[...]

"What we are witnessing globally is a crisis both of the political class and of progressive opposition to it. It is this dual crisis that is unstitching politics. To return to Francis Fukuyama’s vision, the current tumult is the result of struggles for recognition that remain unshaped by progressive movements, of ideological struggles in a post-ideological world."

[...]

"What we need is to re-establish a politics of solidarity not rooted in the politics of identity, whether of the right or the left, to establish new social mechanisms through which to link liberal ideas about individual rights and freedom, including freedom of movement, with progressive economic arguments and a belief in the community and the collective".


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 30, 2016)

Much to like in the piece as ever, but whilst I personally like the conclusion I don't see the means to persuade those who have drifted away. I think those currently inclined to the right already feel pretty solid together and arguments about rights like freedom of movement will just be received as a 'you're wrong' sort of hectoring. Ensure housing rights for citizens and then free movement wouldn't be such an issue - an idea to let all others spring from.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 3, 2017)




----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 3, 2017)

Where's that from Fozzie?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 3, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> View attachment 98199


Yeah democracy seemed like such a good idea at first. But then I found out you had to include poor people!


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Yeah democracy seemed like such a good idea st first. But then I found out you had to include poor people!



There are loads of poor people that don't feel the need to turn towards racism. So anyone that voted UKIP or for Trump is surely either racist or thick.


----------



## killer b (Jan 3, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> View attachment 98199


I saw that yesterday. Mental.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 3, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> View attachment 98199



Someone sent me that yesterday as well.

Some _interesting _assumptions about democracy being promoted rather vigorously right now.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 3, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> There are loads of poor people that don't feel the need to turn towards racism. So anyone that voted UKIP or for Trump is surely either racist or thick.


So people who vote the wrong way should no longer be allowes to vote?


----------



## Manter (Jan 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Where's that from Fozzie?


New yorker


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2017)

emanymton said:


> So people who vote the wrong way should no longer be allowes to vote?


...and some sort of IQ test as well. 

A dangerous suggestion for this particular poster i feel.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 3, 2017)

Manter said:


> New yorker


Ta


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2017)

Manter said:


> New yorker


I literally just finished reading another piece from there that used trump as a jump off point. It's smug/patronising in a different way  - or at least a more formally sophisticated way -  but does at least manage to get in this great Adorno quote:



> Lies have long legs: they are ahead of their time. The conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power, a process that truth itself cannot escape if it is not to be annihilated by power, not only suppresses truth as in earlier despotic orders, but has attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false, which the hirelings of logic were in any case diligently working to abolish. So Hitler, of whom no one can say whether he died or escaped, survives.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 3, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I literally just finished reading another piece from there that used trump as a jump off point. It's smug/patronising in a different way  - or at least a more formally sophisticated way -  but does at least manage to get in this great Adorno quote:


Christ that is terrible. Those proles with their pop-cultural frivolity!

EDIT: And causing damage to the the idea of intellectual property,


----------



## J Ed (Jan 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> I saw that yesterday. Mental.



Well received by many, well not many, but a very vocal and confident minority



I think that this stuff is going to be the sort of thing that characterises the 'resistance' to right-wing populism.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2017)

emanymton said:


> So people who vote the wrong way should no longer be allowes to vote?



They can vote. Everyone should be able to vote and should exercise that right. It doesn't mean that if there are a majority of idiots that others shouldn't call them up on it.

We have a Tory government because the majority of people in this country are idiotic. Also displayed by the vote on leaving Europe.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 3, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> They can vote. Everyone should be able to vote and should exercise that right. It doesn't mean that if there are a majority of idiots that others shouldn't call them up on it.
> 
> We have a Tory government because the majority of people in this country are idiotic. Also displayed by the vote on leaving Europe.



What we need is a smart politics of rationality!


----------



## emanymton (Jan 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Christ that is terrible. Those proles with the pop-cultural frivolity!
> 
> EDIT: And causing damage to the the idea of intellectual property,


Is it just me. Or does this article while decrying pop culture and the election of Trump as some form of fascism, set of on a path which if taken to its conclusion would most certainly be rather fascist.


Oh and 'the local hirelings of logic' 
I wonder if they are related to the souless minions of orthodoxy?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 3, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Is it just me. Or does this article while decrying pop culture and the election of Trump as some form of fascism, set of on a path which if taken to its conclusion would most certainly be rather fascist.
> 
> 
> Oh and 'the local hirelings of logic'
> I wonder if they are related to the souless minions of orthodoxy?



If given the chance at a Pinochet that would enforce favoured social mores, put the right people in their place etc I think a lot of liberals would jump at it.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 3, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> They can vote. Everyone should be able to vote and should exercise that right. It doesn't mean that if there are a majority of idiots that others shouldn't call them up on it.
> 
> We have a Tory government because the majority of people in this country are idiotic. Also displayed by the vote on leaving Europe.


Is this some sort of meta-joke about the thread title?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 3, 2017)

J Ed said:


> If given the chance at a Pinochet that would enforce favoured social mores, put the right people in their place etc I think a lot of liberals would jump at it.


Scratch a liberal...


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2017)

J Ed said:


> What we need is a smart politics of rationality!



Or people could have less racist feelings.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 3, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Or people could have less racist feelings.



How long should we bomb them for until they come back with the right answer?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2017)

J Ed said:


> If given the chance at a Pinochet that would enforce favoured social mores, put the right people in their place etc I think a lot of liberals would jump at it.



The concept of the "liberal" seems to exist in far less numbers than people on here seem to think.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2017)

J Ed said:


> How long should we bomb them for until they come back with the right answer?



What a nonsensical argument - we could bomb the north out of existence if you really insist.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 3, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Or people could have less racist feelings.


Let's just go with your belief that the majority of people in the UK are idiots* and > 15% of them are racists, how do you intend to produce these "less racist feelings"? Cos call be crazy but I don't think shouting "racist idiot" at them is really going to work.

*of course nothing like the majority of people in the UK voted Conservative, so who are you actually calling idiots here? Non-voters? Anybody who didn't vote Labour?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 3, 2017)

There was the question of what the "Left" should be doing, leaving aside for the minute that my thoughts on the left are similar to seventh bullets, one thing that people on the left might want to do is get back in touch with a little humanism.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Let's just go with your belief that the majority of people in the UK are idiots* and > 15% of them are racists, how do you intend to produce these "less racist feelings"? Cos call be crazy but I don't think shouting "racist idiot" at them is really going to work.
> 
> *of course nothing like the majority of people in the UK voted Conservative, so who are actually calling idiots here? Non-voters? Anybody who didn't vote Labour?



I can judge them without wanting to help them.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 3, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I can judge them without wanting to help them.



I think this is an honest articulation of a very widely held position these days.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 3, 2017)

I'm put off by parts of the 'left' because there appears to be a starting point where most people I know are considered enemies, problems to be solved. I currently wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. I guess a part of the above is its class make up. I think The39thStep put it well when he talked not just about a so-called 'socialism' without the working class but against it.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 3, 2017)

Manter said:


> New yorker



reminds me of a classic quote  "...the cartoons in the New Yorker are no laughing matter..."  google has failed me as to who & the when though


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I think this is an honest articulation of a very widely held position these days.


A position worse than even that of priests.


----------



## Libertad (Jan 3, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> reminds me of a classic quote  "...the cartoons in the New Yorker are no laughing matter..."  google has failed me as to who & the when though



If in doubt it'll be Dorothy Parker.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2017)

There may be something here about the return to the days before the 30 post war years of social mobility and all that entailed and all that drove it, and to the class/social apartheid that existed. As all the above breaks down and goes into reverse, so this class separateness appears to be making a comeback - and in doing so, undermining the ideology of we're all in together, class no longer exists, embourgeoisement  (or the reverse: everyone is being forced into becoming w/c) and so on that accompanied those 30 or so years and have become the dominant tone of all of the main parties. The drawing of _distinctions _- on intelligence, background, work, education, age, region etc - is back big time.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 3, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I can judge them without wanting to help them.


What an mad, and horrible, post. Whose talking about "helping them"? I was trying to outline a course of action that would "help" you, presumably you don't want a Tory government?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> What an mad, and horrible, post. Whose talking about "helping them"? I was trying to outline a course of action that would "help" you, presumably you don't want a Tory government?



Its not mad or horrible. The thread is about how calling people stupid isn't working. Why would anyone want to help the stupid and/or racist. These stupid and/or racist voters have delivered Trump in the US, leaving the EU in the UK, and likely Le Pen in France. Why would I want to help them?

Instead I judge them for their stupidity and intolerance. I don't want a Tory government but most of the time they sre are are stupid and/or racist to vote them in. Assuming the majority of the country aren't all wealthy enough to vote Tory to protect their wealth.


----------



## treelover (Jan 3, 2017)

Hearing lots like BIG's posts, disturbing, if it is ubiquitous, the rise of the right is largely a given imo.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 3, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Well received by many, well not many, but a very vocal and confident minority
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this stuff is going to be the sort of thing that characterises the 'resistance' to right-wing populism.



It's depressing if so.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 3, 2017)

treelover said:


> Hearing lots like BIG's posts, disturbing, if it is ubiquitous, the rise of the right is largely a given imo.



Our politics is increasingly just Nick Clegg or Nigel Farage


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 3, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Its not mad or horrible. The thread is about how calling people stupid isn't working. Why would anyone want to help the stupid and/or racist.


Everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and/or racist. Therefore they're stupid and/or racist. 

That's all you've got.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 3, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Its not mad or horrible. The thread is about how calling people stupid isn't working. Why would anyone want to help the stupid and/or racist. These stupid and/or racist voters have delivered Trump in the US, leaving the EU in the UK, and likely Le Pen in France. Why would I want to help them?
> 
> Instead I judge them for their stupidity and intolerance. I don't want a Tory government but most of the time they sre are are stupid and/or racist to vote them in. Assuming the majority of the country aren't all wealthy enough to vote Tory to protect their wealth.


You don't think this view is horrible? That your hatred/contempt for the majority of the people in the UK (the world?) isn't horrible. 

Well I don't think there's much else to say.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 3, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Its not mad or horrible. The thread is about how calling people stupid isn't working. Why would anyone want to help the stupid and/or racist. These stupid and/or racist voters have delivered Trump in the US, leaving the EU in the UK, and likely Le Pen in France. Why would I want to help them?
> 
> Instead I judge them for their stupidity and intolerance. I don't want a Tory government but most of the time they sre are are stupid and/or racist to vote them in. Assuming the majority of the country aren't all wealthy enough to vote Tory to protect their wealth.



The hostility shown towards mainly poor working class people (who seem to get the blame for all the evils of the universe) and the multifarious reasons for individual voting choices etc, reveals a general bigotry towards the wider working class expressed by middle class liberals.  Even the people who are deemed somewhat respectable for having not voted the 'wrong' way are still lesser people, just they are thick, uneducated lower class scum who weren't so offensive this time and didn't pipe up.  Remember only one 'side' is ignorant, only one side hates.  When engaging with them like this it's not on our terms.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and/or racist. Therefore they're stupid and/or racist.
> 
> That's all you've got.



I think people that voted for brexit, trump, or will vote for le pen are stupid, racist, or deluded and most times all three.

And I have contempt for them.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 3, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> The hostility shown towards mainly poor working class people (who seem to get the blame for all the evils of the universe) and the multifarious reasons for individual voting choices etc, reveals a general bigotry towards the wider working class expressed by middle class liberals.  Even the people who are deemed somewhat respectable for having not voted the 'wrong' way are still lesser people, just they are thick, uneducated lower class scum who weren't so offensive this time and didn't pipe up.  Remember only one 'side' is ignorant, only one side hates.  When engaging with them like this it's not on our terms.



There are plenty of thick uneducated middle class scum.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 4, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> The hostility shown towards mainly poor working class people (who seem to get the blame for all the evils of the universe) and the multifarious reasons for individual voting choices etc, reveals a general bigotry towards the wider working class expressed by middle class liberals.  Even the people who are deemed somewhat respectable for having not voted the 'wrong' way are still lesser people, just they are thick, uneducated lower class scum who weren't so offensive this time and didn't pipe up.  Remember only one 'side' is ignorant, only one side hates.  When engaging with them like this it's not on our terms.


 TBH it's part of the long tradition of 'punching down' that's been cultivated by those at the top for decades; middle-class blaming the working class, working class blaming the non-working ('scroungers') or migrant labour etc.  Classic divide and rule. Maybe the leave vote is seen to have broken these rules by 'punching up' (even if the result was as much driven by well-fed Tory golf club bigots etc - just make sure the blame points down)


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> There are plenty of thick uneducated middle class scum.



Perhaps using the words 'thick' and 'uneducated' to describe 'people I disagree with' is not a good idea.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Perhaps using the words 'thick' and 'uneducated' to describe 'people I disagree with' is not a good idea.


"Uneducated" is the give away.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Perhaps using the words 'thick' and 'uneducated' to describe 'people I disagree with' is not a good idea.



I regard racists as thick. Apologies for that. 

I regard people without education as uneducated. Apologies for that.

You haven't really tried to engage with my points.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I regard people without education as uneducated. Apologies for that.
> 
> You haven't really tried to engage with my points.


Ok, so what does that bit mean? Who is "without education"? Do you propose to "educate" them? Or just insult them?  If you propose to try to educate them, will part of the process be insulting them and their intelligence?


----------



## chilango (Jan 4, 2017)

Fuck you B.I.G 

*You* are the enemy right now.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I regard racists as thick. Apologies for that.
> 
> I regard people without education as uneducated. Apologies for that.
> 
> You haven't really tried to engage with my points.



I don't really see what your points are other than you regard a lack of intelligence or a lack of education as being why people would disagree with you, and that that makes them bad. 

More than anything, it just isn't true. The majority of university-educated white people in the US voted for Trump, for example. In Britain, 57% of university graduates voted Remain, so education is hardly an 'inoculation' against 'positions that B.I.G disagrees with'.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Ok, so what does that bit mean? Who is "without education"? Do you propose to "educate" them? Or just insult them?  If you propose to try to educate them, will part of the process be insulting them and their intelligence?



People without education is can be defined as people who left school at 16, now 18 I assume, and didnt complete any professional education in their career, for example, plumbing examinations. 

I would also include people as educated as those that are widely read regardless of formal education. 

If people lack education, Uneducated is not an insult, anymore than lack of common sense or unattractive is, merely a description. 

Thick is an insult. 

And I don't propose to try and educate them. That would imply an assumption that I am in a position to do so. They can educate themselves if they so choose.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I don't really see what your points are other than you regard a lack of intelligence or a lack of education as being why people would disagree with you, and that that makes them bad.
> 
> More than anything, it just isn't true. The majority of university-educated white people in the US voted for Trump, for example. In Britain, 57% of university graduates voted Remain, so education is hardly an 'inoculation' against 'positions that B.I.G disagrees with'.



Your argument is that people went to university aren't thick, no?

I would strongly dispute that statement.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Your argument is that people went to university aren't thick, no?
> 
> I would strongly dispute that statement.



You used the term uneducated.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I don't really see what your points are other than you regard a lack of intelligence or a lack of education as being why people would disagree with you, and that that makes them bad.
> 
> More than anything, it just isn't true. The majority of university-educated white people in the US voted for Trump, for example. In Britain, 57% of university graduates voted Remain, so education is hardly an 'inoculation' against 'positions that B.I.G disagrees with'.



People who voted for trump and brexit are thick, uneducated, or deluded it doesnt matter if they agree with me or not.

As they are voting against their own best interests.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> People without education is can be defined as people who left school at 16, now 18 I assume, and didnt complete any professional education in their career, for example, plumbing examinations.
> 
> I would also include people as educated as those that are widely read regardless of formal education.
> 
> ...


So, how did it come about that people not educated beyond the statutory age  voted for Brexit?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> You used the term uneducated.



I used the phrase uneducated, thick, or deluded. People can beling to one or more of the groups.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> So, how did it come about that people not educated beyond the statutory age  voted for Brexit?



Not all of them did. I would suggest that those that did are mainly racist. Then you have those that are stupid and instead of racism believed lies about boosting the nhs. And then there are those that sre deluded about it returning power to the people.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2017)

Ah the 21st Century

Do you want to vote for a liberal politician who will ensure that a hellfire missile drone is painted pink to raise LGBT awareness during the latest murderous bombing campaign? Or do you vote for the far-right politician who wants to develop a database to force children without citizenship out of the schools both they and the liberal have chronically underfunded?

Remember not to vote against your own interests!


----------



## JimW (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> People who voted for trump and brexit are thick, uneducated, or deluded it doesnt matter if they agree with me or not.
> 
> As they are voting against their own best interests.


So the plan is to sit in the sunny uplands watching the world burn because too many don't come up to your standards? If your politics abandons a wide swathe of the country is it any surprise they abandon you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Or worse.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2017)

JimW said:


> So the plan is to sit in the sunny uplands watching the world burn because too many don't come up to your standards? If your politics abandons a wide swathe of the country is it any surprise they abandon you?



I wonder how much of these attitudes are the result of liberals believing their own bullshit about power. We are all individuals, there is no ruling class, no social class or any worthwhile collective identity and all individual opinions are of equal worth anyway so why wouldn't you express these attitudes?


----------



## andysays (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> ...If people lack education, Uneducated is not an insult, anymore than lack of common sense or unattractive is, merely a description...



"Uneducated" may not necessarily be an insult, but it doesn't take a Masters degree in linguistics to recognise that you are using uneducated in this thread as an insult, to dismiss and express contempt for people who vote differently or have different views to you.

Whether you realise it or not, you are the perfect example of what this thread is about


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2017)

chilango said:


> Fuck you B.I.G
> 
> *You* are the enemy right now.


This times a million


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

andysays said:


> "Uneducated" may not necessarily be an insult, but it doesn't take a Masters degree in linguistics to recognise that you are using uneducated in this thread as an insult, to dismiss and express contempt for people who vote differently or have different views to you.
> 
> Whether you realise it or not, you are the perfect example of what this thread is about



There are plenty of uneducated people that vote in the same way that I do on many matters, what you are saying is that I am using uneducated as an insult because it suits your purposes, but I don't care if people are uneducated or not, and they certainly am not inferior to me if they are.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I regard racists as thick. Apologies for that.
> 
> I regard people without education as uneducated. Apologies for that.
> 
> You haven't really tried to engage with my points.





Dogsauce said:


> TBH it's part of the long tradition of 'punching down' that's been cultivated by those at the top for decades; middle-class blaming the working class, working class blaming the non-working ('scroungers') or migrant labour etc.  Classic divide and rule. _*Maybe the leave vote is seen to have broken these rules by 'punching up'*_ (even if the result was as much driven by well-fed Tory golf club bigots etc - just make sure the blame points down)


That's an interesting point that raises some questions.
If, as you suggest, the Leave campaign/vote gave permission for/encouraged 'punching up' it's important to analyse what forces were instrumental in that process, over what time period will that 'permission' hold and to what ends was it allowed.

I'd suggest that the answer might lie within the notion of oligarchic rule, in particular the recent trend for (formerly) _non-ruling oligarchs, _who had been content to 'sub-contract' their wealth-defence to a professional public bureaucracy, to more explicitly fuse their economic and political power. Obviously the 2016 US Presidential election offers the most striking example of the emergence of Russian-style, oligarchic elite rule, but it might also be useful to analyse the Brexit vote in those terms?

Having lost confidence in the supra-national bureaucracy's ability to effectively defend their wealth, the oligarchic elite/media determined to separate, insulate and protect their island wealth-haven from bureaucratic meddling from the professional experts & technocrats of the super-state. In this project they exceptionally (& temporarily) permitted the proletariat the 'luxury' of _punching-up _to the elements of the political elite who were, as "enemies of the people", complicit with the foreign, technocratic/expert elite responsible for stealing 'our' sovereignty. Crucially, this permitted _punching-up _was tightly focussed so as to excuse the oligarchic elite from any scrutiny or criticism.

In such an analysis those voting Leave in the hope of 'getting my country back' or 'taking back control' were merely _useful idiots _in the cause of effecting a move towards oligarchic rule in one of the elites' favoured tax/wealth havens.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2017)

And by using the established political term of _*useful idiot, *_I am not implying that people voting Leave were stupid.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Not all of them did. I would suggest that those that did are mainly racist. Then you have those that are stupid and instead of racism believed lies about boosting the nhs. And then there are those that sre deluded about it returning power to the people.


So, voting Leave or Trump was against their interests but voting Remain or Clinton was in their interests? People who voted Remain or Clinton were alone not deluded. And were educated beyond statutory leaving age.

So. I'm engaging. Talk me through that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

brogdale said:


> That's an interesting point that raises some questions.
> If, as you suggest, the Leave campaign/vote gave permission for/encouraged 'punching up' it's important to analyse what forces were instrumental in that process, over what time period will that 'permission' hold and to what ends was it allowed.
> 
> I'd suggest that the answer might lie within the notion of oligarchic rule, in particular the recent trend for (formerly) non-ruling oligarchs, who had been content to 'sub-contract' their wealth-defence to a professional public bureaucracy, to more explicitly fuse their economic and political power. Obviously the 2016 US Presidential election offers the most striking example of the emergence of Russian-style, oligarchic elite rule, but it might also be useful to analyse the Brexit vote in those terms?
> ...


So we now have direct rule by capital without politicians and the state inbetween as a result of the vote to leave?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> So we now have direct rule by capital without politicians and the state inbetween as a result of the vote to leave?


A move towards/ making possible, more likely.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

JimW said:


> So the plan is to sit in the sunny uplands watching the world burn because too many don't come up to your standards? If your politics abandons a wide swathe of the country is it any surprise they abandon you?



Abandon me, they have abandoned themselves. I'm not a politician, they aren't even aware of my politics.  As for the sunny uplands, they have gained and lost as much as I have from their votes.  They have as much benefit from EU migration as I do.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Abandon me, they have abandoned themselves.



Thread over


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Abandon me, they have abandoned themselves. I'm not a politician, they aren't even aware of my politics.  As for the sunny uplands, they have gained and lost as much as I have from their votes.  They have as much benefit from EU migration as I do.



Are you aware of your politics?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I wonder how much of these attitudes are the result of liberals believing their own bullshit about power. We are all individuals, there is no ruling class, no social class or any worthwhile collective identity and all individual opinions are of equal worth anyway so why wouldn't you express these attitudes?


I certainly think this anti-humanism that B.I.G. is an example of goes hand-in-hand with the individualism so beloved of Thatcher. After all who cares about _society_ when most of it just consists of idiots anyway, just look after number one.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> So, voting Leave or Trump was against their interests but voting Remain or Clinton was in their interests? People who voted Remain or Clinton were alone not deluded. And were educated beyond statutory leaving age.
> 
> So. I'm engaging. Talk me through that.



Trump is a racist, so if they are racist they are obviously voting in their own interests. Voting leave is not in their interests as their are no benefits other than closing than borders and increased UK government sovereignty.  People who voted for Clinton may have been deluded that she would have benefited them, but she is likely to have protected Civil rights more than Trump.  Remain voters are unlikely to have been deluded being as its maintaining the status quo.

As to educated beyond statutory age, I don't know if they were, but I do know that the explanation for their vote lies with them being either uneducated, thick, or deluded, which covers most votes against people's own interests even if I agree or disagree.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I certainly think this anti-humanism that B.I.G. is an example of goes hand-in-hand with the individualism so beloved of Thatcher. After all who cares about _society_ when most of it just consists of idiots anyway, just look after number one.



Anti-humanism.  Classic putting words in the mouths of people that don't share your world view.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Are you aware of your politics?



I'm aware of my views.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Anti-humanism.  Classic putting words in the mouths of people that don't share your world view.





B.I.G said:


> Trump is a racist, so if they are racist they are obviously voting in their own interests. Voting leave is not in their interests as their are no benefits other than closing than borders and increased UK government sovereignty.  People who voted for Clinton may have been deluded that she would have benefited them, but she is likely to have protected Civil rights more than Trump.  Remain voters are unlikely to have been deluded being as its maintaining the status quo.
> 
> As to educated beyond statutory age, I don't know if they were, but I do know that the explanation for their vote lies with them being either uneducated, thick, or deluded, which covers most votes against people's own interests even if I agree or disagree.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I'm aware of my views.


B.I.G for human president.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2017)

Yeah cos calling the majority of the population UK and at least 25% of the US and France (and good knows how many more worldwide) thick and/or racist isn't anti-humanist at all.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> So we now have direct rule by capital without politicians and the state inbetween as a result of the vote to leave?


Yeah, I would argue that as a sovereign nation-state un-bound by the EU project, it is considerably easier and more worthwhile for Oligarchic forces to effect political power. I believe that's why the campaign was supported & backed as it was and that _punching-up _was permitted.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, I would argue that as a sovereign nation-state un-bound by the EU project, it is considerably easier and more worthwhile for Oligarchic forces to effect political power. I believe that's why the campaign was supported & backed as it was and that _punching-up _was permitted.


Any idea why the great mass of those oligarchic forces were opposed to leaving the EU then?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Any idea why the great mass of those oligarchic forces were opposed to leaving the EU then?


Were they? Or were we seeing the professional, bureaucratic institutions that believed they were representing capital?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Were they? Or were we seeing the professional, bureaucratic institutions that believed they were representing capital?


The great mass of capital  - financial and industrial, parasitic and productive - overwhelmingly opposed leaving the EU. As did the political institutions designed to legitimate them.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Trump is a racist, so if they are racist they are obviously voting in their own interests.


This is just "they are racists therefore they're racists".  It's not an explanation of anything.  No evidence, no argument, no reasoning.



> Voting leave is not in their interests as their are no benefits other than closing than borders and increased UK government sovereignty.


You're sure about that?  No other benefits? Well, I guess we can take your word for it.  What with you being educated and non-deluded.

I asked if voting Remain was in the interests of those voting Remain.  You seem to have avoided answering that.



> People who voted for Clinton may have been deluded that she would have benefited them, but she is likely to have protected Civil rights more than Trump.


With you being educated and non deluded, we'll have to accept that.  Was there no other issue being decided then?  Only civil rights?  



> Remain voters are unlikely to have been deluded being as its maintaining the status quo.


And voting _in favour_ of the status quo is voting in my interests?  Your interests?  The interests of everyone?



> As to educated beyond statutory age, I don't know if they were


You attested they were.  You brought up the term "uneducated".  You meant it in a patronising, superior way. Then when challenged on it, you said you didn't.  You said you meant it in a non-judgemental, specific way, as purely a descriptor.  You meant people not educated beyond statutory age.  So either you knew something about that demographic or you didn't.  Which?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> And voting _in favour_ of the status quo is voting in my interests?  Your interests?  The interests of everyone?


Definitely in the interests of those that have seen their standard of living decrease over the last 30 years. Why would they not want more of the same.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> The great mass of capital  - financial and industrial, parasitic and productive - overwhelmingly opposed leaving the EU. As did the political institutions designed to legitimate them.


Yes, but what those bodies had in common was some sort of concern for the economic 'health' of the nation-state/society concerned; but neoliberal oligarchic inequality is so great that genuine oligarchic wealth is largely decoupled from the fate of the national economy. The desire for secure wealth havens exceeds concern for economic impact of the withdrawal from the super-state.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> This is just "they are racists therefore they're racists".  It's not an explanation of anything.  No evidence, no argument, no reasoning.
> 
> You're sure about that?  No other benefits? Well, I guess we can take your word for it.  What with you being educated and non-deluded.
> 
> ...



If you are a racist than you are a racist, and therefore likely to vote for a racist.  What explanation is needed.

Voting is in the interests of voting remain voters if there interests are aligned with the four principles of the EU. Mine are, they can only speak for themselves.

Voting in favour of the status quo means you have to be very deluded to not realise what is happening, rather than a mythical future.

I have attested several times that people voting for Trump or Brexit were uneducated, stupid, or deluded, and I might as well add racist.  It is you suggesting I meant it in a patronising superior way, since I know I do not patronise or feel superior to the uneducated.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Yes, but what those bodies had in common was some sort of concern for the economic 'health' of the nation-state/society concerned; but neoliberal oligarchic inequality is so great that genuine oligarchic wealth is largely decoupled from the fate of the national economy. The desire for secure wealth havens exceeds concern for economic impact of the withdrawal from the super-state.


I think you're wandering into some dangerous territory here where a handful - a few tens of thousands people - who are utterly reliant on the state and it's real financial support and political legitimation for their continued existence - have both abandoned and taken over the state whilst directing millions of people to do something which they (the oligarchs) actually opposed. Whilst the mass of really existing capital actually aggressively supported and argued for exactly the same as what they wanted. That is, to stay in the EU. So why on earth would these oligarchs act in this way - if they could?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Definitely in the interests of those that have seen their standard of living decrease over the last 30 years. Why would they not want more of the same.



It is a point of view to think that standards of living have declined due to the EU, I would disagree.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Finally some sense.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If you are a racist than you are a racist, and therefore likely to vote for a racist.  What explanation is needed.


You're just writing people off as racists without trying to find out whether you're right about that. And spraying the term about indiscriminately cheapens it.  That helps nobody.  And pisses off people even further who are already pissed off by the liberal elite.  You want an alienated mass of people?  Carry on.



> Voting is in the interests of voting remain voters if there interests are aligned with the four principles of the EU. Mine are, they can only speak for themselves.


The EU is a neoliberal project.  My interests are not aligned with it.  Where do we go from there?  You calling me racist and uneducated?



> Voting in favour of the status quo means you have to be very deluded to not realise what is happening, rather than a mythical future.


And there we have it: "actively vote for the staus quo or you're deluded".  I don't want the status quo.  I don't like the EU the way it is now. (C/f Greece). Never mind what it'll become.  So where does that leave us?  What do I do?	



> I have attested several times that people voting for Trump or Brexit were uneducated, stupid, or deluded, and I might as well add racist.  It is you suggesting I meant it in a patronising superior way, since I know I do not patronise or feel superior to the uneducated.


But you continue to attest they are uneducated.  When asked what you meant by that you said: not educated beyond statutory age.  Then you said you didn't know if Remainers or Clintoneers were educated beyond statutory leaving age.  You must have thought it relevant when you brought it up, so how is it relevant?  What is it about that demographic that you thought was worth mentioning?  Are they disproportionately Leavers or Remainers?  What is the argument?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If you are a racist than you are a racist, and therefore likely to vote for a racist.  What explanation is needed


And that's it? They are juat a racist and nothing more? They don't have any concerns beyond racism that you might share with them? There is no way to challage their racist ideas? Being a racist is what gentic and Just hardwired into some people? 

My grandad was a racist, not that he would ever have voted ukip or anything, but he had rascist ideas and came out with rascist statements. He was also a trade union rep who defended people against rascist bullying. Because when it came to the crunch his sense of class solidarity was stronger than his racism. But to you no doubt he was just uneducated, thick and worthless.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I think you're wandering into some dangerous territory here where a handful - a few tens of thousands people - who are utterly reliant on the state and it's real financial support and political legitimation for their continued existence - have both abandoned and taken over the state whilst directing millions of people to do something which they (the oligarchs) actually opposed. Whilst the mass of really existing capital actually aggressively supported and argued for exactly the same as what they wanted. That is, to stay in the EU. So why on earth would these oligarchs act in this way - if they could?


I'm conscious that I may have spent a bit too much time mulling over Adam Tooze's recent LRB piece, and am regurgitating, but...wrt "dangerous territory"; yes, I accept that this sort of argument runs the risk of skating too close to certain strands of loonspudery. That said, I don't say that oligarchic drivers of Trump/Brexit have sought to abandon the state; quite the opposite, but vast wealth does enable them to effectively abandon concern for the economic well-being of the state they choose as their preferred wealth-haven. I would say that Trump's billionaire administration demonstrates this desire to secure the levers of the state to consolidate a secure, ordered (possibly authoritarian), zero-tax wealth haven for their (albeit tiny) class. A, once more, sovereign UK(England?) is far more susceptible to such a process of political development, than was a nation-state bound by the ever closer political union of the super-state.


----------



## JimW (Jan 4, 2017)

Strange gene, the racism one, as its prevalence seems to fluctuate with completely unrelated social and political circumstances.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

brogdale said:


> I'm conscious that I may have spent a bit too much time mulling over Adam Tooze's recent LRB piece, and am regurgitating, but...wrt "dangerous territory"; yes, I accept that this sort of argument runs the risk of skating too close to certain strands of loonspudery. That said, I don't say that oligarchic drivers of Trump/Brexit have sought to abandon the state; quite the opposite, but vast wealth does enable them to effectively abandon concern for the economic well-being of the state they choose as their preferred wealth-haven. I would say that Trump's billionaire administration demonstrates this desire to secure the levers of the state to consolidate a secure, ordered (possibly authoritarian), zero-tax wealth haven for their (albeit tiny) class. A, once more, sovereign UK(England?) is far more susceptible to such a process of political development, than was a nation-state bound by the ever closer political union of the super-state.


The people and interest you're talking about though - they have the ECB as their continent wide bailiffs (edit: as well as shoveling money their way non-stop). They have no interest in doing away with that set up and simply didn't argue for it. I think there's far more possibility to make this argument as regards trump than the eu vote - but again, i don't see these people and interests doing anything to get behind him. nor him doing much more to further their interests than Clinton would have done. Which would explain why they didn't really organise against her.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> You're just writing people off as racists without trying to find out whether you're right about that. And spraying the term about indiscriminately cheapens it.  That helps nobody.  And pisses off people even further who are already pissed off by the liberal elite.  You want an alienated mass of people?  Carry on.
> 
> The EU is a neoliberal project.  My interests are not aligned with it.  Where do we go from there?  You calling me racist and uneducated?
> 
> ...



If people vote for racists than they are racists.

If you don't like the EU the way it is then you are putting your faith that things will be better outside, I think that is deluded, but you may well turn out to be right.

My argument is that people that wanted to leave the EU are either stupid, uneducated, deluded or racist.  I believe you to be deluded in thinking the EU will be less palatable to you in the future than what will become of the UK government and country, but that is entirely a matter of opinion and conjecture.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

JimW said:


> Strange gene, the racism one, as its prevalence seems to fluctuate with completely unrelated social and political circumstances.



People are just as racist when things are going well.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If people vote for racists than they are racists.
> 
> If you don't like the EU the way it is then you are putting your faith that things will be better outside, I think that is deluded, but you may well turn out to be right.
> 
> My argument is that people that wanted to leave the EU are either stupid, uneducated, deluded or racist.  I believe you to be deluded in thinking the EU will be less palatable to you in the future than what will become of the UK government and country, but that is entirely a matter of opinion and conjecture.


If they vote for non-racists, does that make them non-racists? Does voting for labour mean that you're not a racist? Dangerous game. Again.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

emanymton said:


> And that's it? They are juat a racist and nothing more? They don't have any concerns beyond racism that you might share with them? There is no way to challage their racist ideas? Being a racist is what gentic and Just hardwired into some people?
> 
> My grandad was a racist, not that he would ever have voted ukip or anything, but he had rascist ideas and came out with rascist statements. He was also a trade union rep who defended people against rascist bullying. Because when it came to the crunch his sense of class solidarity was stronger than his racism. But to you no doubt he was just uneducated, thick and worthless.



If he was a racist than I regard him as worthless. The world would be a lot better off without racists.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> If they vote for non-racists, does that make them non-racists? Does voting for labour mean that you're not a racist? Dangerous game. Again.



Not sure the Labour party does not equal equivalence with non-racist.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If he was a racist than I regard him as worthless. The world would be a lot better off without racists.


Something so heinous that you want millions dead, yet you have no interest at all in what produces what you decry. Genius stuff.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If you are a racist than you are a racist, and therefore likely to vote for a racist.  What explanation is needed.
> 
> Voting is in the interests of voting remain voters if there interests are aligned with the four principles of the EU. Mine are, they can only speak for themselves.
> 
> ...


Here's your status quo: if a member state tries to increase the pensions of the poorest, that state gets really and actually penalised: UK Votes to Leave EU

Unless I vote in favour of that I'm deluded, uneducated and probably racist. 

Can't you see how you're just pushing the majority - the majority - further away?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Not sure the Labour party does not equal equivalence with non-racist.


So then, your simple equation breaks down doesn't it?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> The people and interest you're talking about though - they have the ECB as their continent wide bailiffs (edit: as well as shoveling money their way non-stop). They have no interest in doing away with that set up and simply didn't argue for it. I think there's far more possibility to make this argument as regards trump than the eu vote - but again, i don't see these people and interests doing anything to get behind him. nor him doing much more to further their interests than Clinton would have done. Which would explain why they didn't really organise against her.


I'm aware I (we) might be cluttering up this thread with this argument & getting in the way of the racism discussion?

But hey, I suppose I am calling out the non-Lexit Leave vote as _useful idiots, _so I better try to defend my position.
I think that the people and interests that I'm talking about are, for the reasons you suggest, perfectly happy for the ECB to continue to effect regressive wealth redistribution...and indeed it will continue to do so, irrespective of the UK detaching itself into an oligarch-friendly wealth-haven. With regards to the oligarchic support of Trump, I'd agree that _in advance of his victory _the support of these interests was not so visible. I suspect that they either felt that explicit support would be unhelpful, he would not win or that he was too flaky a candidate to carry their "insurgency". That said, it was obvious that the prospect of a Trump victory was welcomed in states already more advanced in oligarchic rule.


----------



## JimW (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> People are just as racist when things are going well.


Been a constant down the years then? Always with us, like the poor.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If people vote for racists than they are racists.


What about people who vote for people want to punish elderly Greeks for the misdemeanours of banks?  Why do you hate Greeks?



> If you don't like the EU the way it is then you are putting your faith that things will be better outside, I think that is deluded, but you may well turn out to be right.


This is the problem with forcing everything into a binary choice.  Either for or against.  There's nothing else.  You either vote with us _or_ you're deluded.  If I look at what your side is offering and I don't like it, then my only choice is something else I might not like.  But you're calling me deluded and uneducated.  I may not like the other choice, but you've just told me it's my only one.



> My argument is that people that wanted to leave the EU are either stupid, uneducated, deluded or racist.


I know, but you have supported none of these allegations with any evidence.  Put your argument together:  we have your conclusion, what are the steps leading to it?



> I believe you to be deluded in thinking the EU will be less palatable to you in the future than what will become of the UK government and country


I have not once said that I "think the EU will be less palatable to me in the future than what will become of the UK government and country". I don't even think it makes sense.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> What about people who vote for people want to punish elderly Greeks for the misdemeanours of banks?  Why do you hate Greeks?
> 
> This is the problem with forcing everything into a binary choice.  Either for or against.  There's nothing else.  You either vote with us _or_ you're deluded.  If I look at what your side is offering and I don't like it, then my only choice is something else I might not like.  But you're calling me deluded and uneducated.  I may not like the other choice, but you've just told me it's my only one.
> 
> ...



You vote against the EU because its neo-liberal, but then the UK government will be even more neo-liberal.  Anyway you asked why I hate Greeks, so I really can't be bothered anymore.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 4, 2017)

lol europe is fulla nazis lol no ones 'neo liberal'  lol go there, try it, you'll get called a british cunt cus they hate us


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> lol europe is fulla nazis lol no ones 'neo liberal'  lol go there, try it, you'll get called a british cunt cus they hate us


Tbh not been my experience, perhaps you're going to the wrong places


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Tbh not been my experience, perhaps you're going to the wrong places




maybe you're only going to the monied city centres near the airports or ferry docks on your own,  monaco isit

people always get the rose tinted view of 'liberal' europe


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If people vote for racists than they are racists.


The tory, labour and lib dem parties share racist pasts, e.g. the racist lib dem policies in Tower hamlets in the 90s. Is everyone who has voted for any of these parties to be written off as racist?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> maybe you're only going to the monied city centres near the airports or ferry docks on your own,  monaco isit


No.

Next.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> The tory, labour and lib dem parties share racist pasts, e.g. the racist lib dem policies in Tower hamlets in the 90s. Is everyone who has voted for any of these parties to be written off as racist?




nah if you vote lib dem yer just a wanker


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> You vote against the EU because its neo-liberal, but then the UK government will be even more neo-liberal.  Anyway you asked why I hate Greeks, so I really can't be bothered anymore.


But that's your doing: you are presenting it as a binary. 

So, if it's either one or the other that means you hate Greeks and old people (racist and ageist), or you thought the Eu would help Greeks and old people (deluded), or you don't understand the process (uneducated).

And if it pisses you off to be told that, then you might just be getting an inkling of insight. Imagine the whole establishment was telling you this, despite years of doing nothing for you. Despite promoting identity politics. What do you do?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No.
> 
> Next.



a hippy commune then seeing as you got the john lennons on or maybe an art gallery


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 4, 2017)

identity politics is a selfish joke


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> a hippy commune then seeing as you got the john lennons on


No


Next


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No
> 
> 
> Next



a beatnik cafe with a mime outside and a dude selling paintings and a poetry group and a selectrion of ground to order coffees and you've got a paper and a croissant and have chosen to sit outside


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> a beatnik cafe with a mime outside and a dude selling paintings and a poetry group and a selectrion of ground to order coffees and you've got a paper and a croissant and have chosen to sit outside


No.

Next.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No.
> 
> Next.



all of the places they go to on coach trip

god yer so boring, i bet yer like ringsting and only go on crusades to palestine to liberate sand


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> all of the places they go to on coach trip
> 
> god yer so boring, i bet yer like ringsting and only go on crusades to palestine to liberate sand


Where have you been to have the experiences you describe?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If people vote for racists than they are racists.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Where have you been to have the experiences you describe?



you think i remember place names? lol i can barely remember how old i am

thinking costs ££££

no £££ no think

and tbh it aint been that many places, so yer probably more privileged than I


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 4, 2017)

on the uneducated= racist thing you only need look to someone like albert speer who was educated above the formal levels BIG requires for membership of humanity, and considered a clever man. Yet there he was on trial at nuremburg.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> on the uneducated= racist thing you only need look to someone like albert speer who was educated above the formal levels BIG requires for membership of humanity, and considered a clever man. Yet there he was on trial at nuremburg.



Enoch Powell, great linguist


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If people vote for racists than they are racists.



At least, that's your un-evidenced assumption. Reality shows that the majority of people who voted for Margaret Thatcher in 3 consecutive elections weren't either racist, uneducated or deluded. What they were, was self-interested. 



> If you don't like the EU the way it is then you are putting your faith that things will be better outside, I think that is deluded, but you may well turn out to be right.
> 
> My argument is that people that wanted to leave the EU are either stupid, uneducated, deluded or racist.  I believe you to be deluded in thinking the EU will be less palatable to you in the future than what will become of the UK government and country, but that is entirely a matter of opinion and conjecture.



My counter-argument is that arguing for the presence of one or all of your three qualifiers misses the point, which is to look beyond the attempt to rationalise behaviour by classifying it as deviant - as you have done - and interrogate why such behaviour happens. The behaviour cannot be divorced from the social relations within which it takes place.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Enoch Powell, great linguist


The gorilla kinda lingers.

I was just listening last night to this podcast about far-right tendencies in US Science Fiction, and how that's related in turn to fractions of elite US social classes that are well educated but also really fucking racist.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 4, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> The gorilla kinda lingers.
> 
> I was just listening last night to this podcast about far-right tendencies in US Science Fiction, and how that's related in turn to fractions of elite US social classes that are well educated but also really fucking racist.


niven and pournell get a mention? linky pls


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 4, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> niven and pournell get a mention? linky pls


Niven and Pournelle centre stage in the rogue's gallery, yes. Check your pms in a wee while.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 4, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> lol europe is fulla nazis lol no ones 'neo liberal'  lol go there, try it, you'll get called a british cunt cus they hate us



It's happened a few times. I have to explain to them I'm actually an Irish cunt. Then I get bought a pint...


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 4, 2017)

It was an interview with the guy reviewed here:

The Secret Authoritarian History of Science Fiction


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If he was a racist than I regard him as worthless. The world would be a lot better off without racists.


Fucking hell this one has got to be a wind up hasn't it? Over half of the UK worthless. Christ.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 4, 2017)

shoulda added 'scum' to the end of the first sentence, has a better ring to it


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 4, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> It was an interview with the guy reviewed here:
> 
> The Secret Authoritarian History of Science Fiction


Lucifers Hammer is the one that always gets mentioned but Footfall also smells very bad indeed


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 4, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Fucking hell this one has got to be a wind up hasn't it? Over half of the UK worthless. Christ.



How do you work that one out, then?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Fucking hell this one has got to be a wind up hasn't it? Over half of the UK worthless. Christ.



Who said half the country? Maybe you are thick and don't know it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Fucking hell this one has got to be a wind up hasn't it? Over half of the UK worthless. Christ.



You can't have it both ways. You have been arguing that  those very same people are not racists. Now you are arguing that they are and trying to say that's what B.I.G has said?

Personally I don't buy the whole 'working class solidarity that trumps racism' melancholy. It simply isn't true for many people not now and not in the past.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> You can't have it both ways. You have been arguing that  those very same people are not racists. Now you are arguing that they are?
> 
> Personally I don't buy the whole 'working class solidarity that trumps racism' melancholy. It simply isn't true for many people not now and not in the past.


No he's not. This B.I.G idiot did. Are you familiar with the debating technique where you follow the logic of your opponent to their logical conclusion in order to demonstrate its idiocy? Great example of it just there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Personally I don't buy the whole 'working class solidarity that trumps racism' melancholy. It simply isn't true for many people not now and not in the past.


What the fuck does this mean?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 4, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Fucking hell this one has got to be a wind up hasn't it? Over half of the UK worthless. Christ.


Yeah I think this is a troll.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Who said half the country? Maybe you are thick and don't know it.





B.I.G said:


> Not all of [people who voted for Brexit] did. I would suggest that those that did are mainly racist. Then you have those that are stupid and instead of racism believed lies about boosting the nhs.





B.I.G said:


> If people vote for racists than they are racists.
> ....
> My argument is that people that wanted to leave the EU are either stupid, uneducated, deluded or racist.



But you're right I exaggerated when I said >50%, maybe 33% is more like it?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> You can't have it both ways. You have been arguing that  those very same people are not racists. Now you are arguing that they are and trying to say that's what B.I.G has said?
> 
> Personally I don't buy the whole 'working class solidarity that trumps racism' melancholy. It simply isn't true for many people not now and not in the past.


Im not too sure but are you accusing me of lying?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Yeah I think this is a troll.


No, check their posts. Once out the non-league forum.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> You can't have it both ways. You have been arguing that  those very same people are not racists. *Now you are arguing that they are* and trying to say that's what B.I.G has said?


(my emphasis) What are you talking about? I'm not saying that at all, that's what B.I.G. believes if you read his posts (well >50% may not be fair, but between 15-50+%)

I'm also not saying, and have not said, that Leave voters are "not racists" either. I think dividing people into some binary racists or non-racist state is utter rubbish, bar a few far hard core ideological racists.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> No, check their posts. Once out the non-league forum.


Wow, it's hard to believe someone could really be this bad in reality.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Im not too sure but are you accusing me of lying?



No I am not. But to imagine that 'most' people are or were like your grandfather is _meloncholy and mythologising,_ it's attributing them characteristics that might not be true. B.I.G has been jumped on for doing the exact same thing only with the opposite characteristics.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 4, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I think dividing people into some binary racists or non-racist state is utter rubbish, bar a few far hard core ideological racists.


Indeed it completely ignores the complexity of real people.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> (my emphasis) What are you talking about? I'm not saying that at all.
> 
> I'm also not saying, and have not said, that Leave voters are "not racists" either. I think dividing people into some binary racists or non-racist state is utter rubbish, bar a few far hard core ideological racists.



You completely exaggerated and now have conceded you did in post #1008

Personally I think these threads are pretty circular. It'd be nice to see some solutions/resolutions/change factors explored... that never seems to happen.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> No I am not. But to imagine that 'most' people are or were like your grandfather is _meloncholy and mythologising_ it's attributing them characteristics that might not be true. B.I.G has been jumped on for doing the exact same thing only with the opposite characteristics.


I don't imagine most people are like him. But all people are more complex than just rascist or not rascist. Reality is more complex than that binary distinction.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> But you're right I exaggerated when I said >50%, maybe 33% is more like it?



I think at least 33 percent of this country is racist or xenophobic.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

emanymton said:


> But all people are more complex than just rascist or not rascist. Reality is more complex than that binary distinction.



I haven't argued otherwise.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> You completely exaggerated and now have conceded you did in post #1008


And you completely misread my post, so now we both made mistakes. Still don't you think the dismissing over a third of the UK population as worthless is pretty disgusting?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> No, check their posts. Once out the non-league forum.



All non-league fans must be trolls.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 4, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> And you completely misread my post, so now we both made mistakes. Still don't you think the dismissing over a third of the UK population as worthless is pretty disgusting?



Depends on how this "third" are perceived as and who's doing the perceiving, I suppose.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> And you completely misread my post, so now we both made mistakes. Still don't you think the dismissing over a third of the UK population as worthless is pretty disgusting?



Which 3rd is that? Who are you asking me to judge?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> All non-league fans must be trolls.


My post saying that you're not a troll becomes evidence that i think you're a troll.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Depends on how this "third" are perceived as and who's doing the perceiving, I suppose.


I don't


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Which 3rd is that? Who are you asking me to judge?


The third that B.I.G. thinks are worthless and want's to disappear.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> The third that B.I.G. thinks are worthless and want's to disappear.


Nope not playing that game. It's circular and boring.

I've said what i'd like to see happen...



> It'd be nice to see some solutions/resolutions/change factors explored... that never seems to happen.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> I haven't argued otherwise.


You seem to be comming into the argument siding with B.I.G who most certainly is.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 4, 2017)

emanymton said:


> You seem to be comming into the argument siding with B.I.G who most certainly is.



And if Rutita1 sided with redsquirrel, would that be more preferrable?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Depends on how this "third" are perceived as and who's doing the perceiving, I suppose.





Rutita1 said:


> Which 3rd is that? Who are you asking me to judge?



Think both of you have misunderstood rs here, tbh. He isn't asking you to judge anyone - he's saying that BIG is doing this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Two pointless people coming in looking for a ruck. Fuck them both off.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Think both of you have misunderstood rs here, tbh. He isn't asking you to judge anyone - he's saying that BIG is doing this.



I know he is saying BIG is doing this but by exaggerating he was doing the same thing.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> I know he is saying BIG is doing this


Yes, I should have said 33+% rather than 50+% (the idiots are the 50+%). Do you really think that makes all the difference? That _only_ wanting 20 million to vanish makes it any the less anti-humanist?



> but by exaggerating he was doing the same thing.


EDIT: What does this even mean? It's nonsense. I'm not calling millions of people worthless.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 4, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> And if Rutita1 sided with redsquirrel, would that be more preferrable?


Sometimes there is a post so stupid it's hard to know how to reply. This is one of those times.


----------



## treelover (Jan 4, 2017)

> It plays with brilliant sarcasm to that low common denominator of prejudice of the former industrial working class who used to vote labour but many were , nevertheless racist.



LSE graduate on the TSSA video, lots more like this on FB, etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> You can't have it both ways. You have been arguing that  those very same people are not racists. Now you are arguing that they are and trying to say that's what B.I.G has said?
> 
> Personally I don't buy the whole 'working class solidarity that trumps racism' melancholy. It simply isn't true for many people not now and not in the past.


How many is many?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2017)

treelover said:


> LSE graduate on the TSSA video, lots more like this on FB, etc.


Filler


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Two pointless people coming in looking for a ruck. Fuck them both off.



If only the _pointless/worthless_ people would disappear....great solution. Oh wait...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> If only the _pointless/worthless_ people would disappear....great solution. Oh wait...


Then what? What happens? Or are you just going to leave this disgusting suggestion there for others to fill?

You've bottled TC's question. Let's see you bottle this one.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> If only the _pointless/worthless_ people would disappear....great solution. Oh wait...


I want the  pointless to be gassed. Yep. Top notch.

i don't care what you and krtek do. You're just thread ruining shit.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Then what? What happens? Or are you just going to leave this disgusting suggestion there for others to fill?


 You've just made the same suggestion was the bloody point.



> You've bottled TC's question. Let's see you bottle this one.


 You bottle the question on resolution/solutions/change all the time. Let's see you continue to do so.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> You've just made the same suggestion was the bloody point.
> 
> You bottle the question on resolution/solutions/change all the time. Let's see you continue to do so.


What?

Again what?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> You've just made the same suggestion was the bloody point.
> 
> You bottle the question on resolution/solutions/change all the time. Let's see you continue to do so.



wtf does this mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Resolution. Fuck i didn't know it was me who moved. Joker.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2017)

What's going on here?



Rutita1 said:


> You bottle the question on resolution/solutions/change all the time. Let's see you continue to do so.


What's this?


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> What's going on here?



Rutita1 had nothing by way of argument, so resorted to snidey insinuations of racism against Butchersapron.

Hard to belive, I know.  Lol.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Pathetic brute force attempt to shut down debate because you're black. You haven't read the thread, you have no interest in doing so. You're a time waster rutita.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2017)

Athos said:


> Rutita1 had nothing by way of argument, so resorted to snidey insinuations of racism against Butchersapron.
> 
> Hard to belive, I know.  Lol.


And "solution"? Was that calculated?

Seriously, that's out of order.


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2017)

DP


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> And "solution"? Was that calculated?
> 
> Seriously, that's out of order.



Bang so.


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Pathetic brute force attempt to shut down debate because you're black. You haven't read the thread, you have no interest in doing so. You're a time waster rutita.



That's all she's got.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2017)

Athos said:


> That's all she's got.


What?

fuck's sake.


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What?
> 
> fuck's sake.



That's her standard MO.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Yep


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

She attacked me for years because of what someone else said. We all look the same.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> She attacked me for years because of what someone else said. We all look the same.


I've had plenty of disagreements with rutita over the years that haven't descended into nasty abuse. Maybe because I don't post things like this:



butchersapron said:


> Two pointless people coming in looking for a ruck. Fuck them both off.



Depressing thread.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

Athos said:


> Rutita1 had nothing by way of argument, so resorted to snidey insinuations of racism against Butchersapron.
> 
> Hard to belive, I know.  Lol.


That's a fucking lie. Attention seeking twit.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> My post saying that you're not a troll becomes evidence that i think you're a troll.



Apologies.  I've been responding to a lot of posts today


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> You've just made the same suggestion was the bloody point.
> 
> You bottle the question on resolution/solutions/change all the time. Let's see you continue to do so.


Meaning... It's not enough to repeatedly tell people that they're wrong when you offer no solutions or suggestions about how to change things.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've had plenty of disagreements with rutita over the years that haven't descended into nasty abuse. Maybe because I don't post things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Depressing thread.


Ignoring what i said. That stuff. Nowhere?

A multi year animus on the wrong person but...yeah


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> She attacked me for years because of what someone else said. We all look the same.


.
We've butted heads for years and mostly I ignore you because despite your knowledge you are a hypocritical bully. But yeah, I can see why overlooking that fact might appeal.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Pathetic brute force attempt to shut down debate because you're black. You haven't read the thread, you have no interest in doing so. You're a time waster rutita.


My ethnicity hasn't come into this until you brought it up.


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> That's a fucking lie. Attention seeking twit.



It's there for anyone to see.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> My ethnicity hasn't come into this until you brought it up.


Uh huh, Brute forced because of...fucking stupid game.

Shitty game.


----------



## bimble (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Uh huh, Brute forced because of...fucking stupid game.
> 
> Shitty game.



Bollocks. You accused her of a "Pathetic brute force attempt to shut down debate because you're black". She responded by pointing out that, in this exchange, her ethnicity totally irrelevant till you brought it up. Rutita is annoying but that was a shitty post, whatever your history might be. Instead of accusing people of shutting down debate 'cos they're black', why not just call them stupid instead, more inkeeping with the sad irony of the whole thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

bimble said:


> Bollocks. You accused her of a "Pathetic brute force attempt to shut down debate because you're black". She responded by pointing out that, in this exchange, her ethnicity totally irrelevant till you brought it up. Rutita is annoying but that was a shitty post, whatever your history might be. Instead of accusing people of shutting down debate 'cos they're black', why not just call them stupid instead, more inkeeping with the sad irony of the whole thread.


Never mentioned, never ready, the trigger cocked. From the first post on this this thread  today, rutita did not mean black and to say so is racist. Pathetic.

Your wheedling is transparent btw.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

Athos said:


> It's there for anyone to see.


What is there to see is you jump in and accuse me of it. It didn't happen though. But well done, well played. You got some attention instead of being ignored as you normally are.


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> What is there to see is you jump in and accuse me of it. It didn't happen though. But well done, well played. You got some attention instead of being ignored as you normally are.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Never mentioned, never ready, the trigger cocked. From the first post on this this thread  today, rutita did not mean black and to say so is racist. Pathetic.
> 
> Your wheedling is transparent btw.


I have said nothing in these exchanges that alluded to of was in anyway associated with my ethnicity. 

You are wrong but you so quickly took Athos' baiting of me because it seems you harbour the belief that I secretly think you are a racist but am too scared to call you one despite the fact that over the years, in between my ignoring you and your snidey comments, I have been clear about what my issue is with the way you throw your weight around and stomp all over anyone who doesn't meet your approval.

What I am most insulted by in all of this is the insinuation that I am somehow fearful of you and too scared to say what I really think... That ego is everything to do with why I could not give two shits what you think.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> I have said nothing in these exchanges that alluded to of was in anyway associated with my ethnicity.
> 
> You are wrong but you so quickly took Athos' baiting of me because it seems you harbour the belief that I secretly think you are a racist but am too scared to call you one despite the fact that over the years, in between my ignoring you and your snidey comments, I have been clear about what my issue is with the way you throw your weight around and stomp all over anyone who doesn't meet your approval.
> 
> What I am most insulted by in all of this is the insinuation that I am somehow fearful of you and too scared to say what I really think... That ego is everything to do with why I could not give two shits what you think.


What I am most insulted by in all of this is the insinuation that I am somehow fearful of you and too scared to say sorry for confusing  you with some else and then rather that sorting it out there and then, continuing the smear. Years after you've been put right. You owe me a public apology.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

Also, very Interesting to see the rising use of 'are you calling me a racist', 'you think I'm a racist' being levelled at poc around here as a way of invalidating what they say.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Also, very Interesting to see the rising use of 'are you calling me a racist', 'you think I'm a racist' being levelled at poc around here as a way of i/?nvalidating what they say.


Why? What does it  mean? Who is doing it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Also, very Interesting to see the rising use of 'are you calling me a racist', 'you think I'm a racist' being levelled at poc around here as a way of invalidating what they say.


You say silly things. You then accuse people of racism. They don't like it and say so. Virtuous circle.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> . You owe me a public apology.


 Now that's funny.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2017)

bimble said:


> Bollocks. You accused her of a "Pathetic brute force attempt to shut down debate because you're black". She responded by pointing out that, in this exchange, her ethnicity totally irrelevant till you brought it up. Rutita is annoying but that was a shitty post, whatever your history might be. Instead of accusing people of shutting down debate 'cos they're black', why not just call them stupid instead, more inkeeping with the sad irony of the whole thread.


I wonder if this will end - as so many of your interventions have in the past - with you apologising for getting things wrong.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> You say silly things. You then accuse people of racism. They don't like it and say so. Virtuous circle.


 What like you have accused me of here which hasn't actually happened but you'll say it anyway? Wow.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> What like you have accused me of here which hasn't actually happened but you'll say it anyway? Wow.


Yeah, like that. Just like that.


----------



## bimble (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Never mentioned, never ready, the trigger cocked. From the first post on this this thread  today, rutita did not mean black and to say so is racist. Pathetic.
> 
> Your wheedling is transparent btw.



Who can skry the utterances of the Magus, I wouldn't dare, so no idea what that post means. It looks a bit like "'whatever she said she said it cos she's black" but that can't be right.  
You're spot on re the wheedling though; I do care deeply what you and Rutita1 think of me because I like to imagine that, if I win you over, one day, we'll go for a picnic together, the 3 of us, and eat boiled eggs on a cliff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2017)

bimble said:


> Who can skry the utterances of the Magus, I wouldn't dare, so no idea what that post means.


So to have a pop at a post you can't fathom you post up a load of bollocks which is meaningless. Way to go.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Why? What does it  mean? Who is doing it?


You and Athos have done exactly that on this thread ffs.


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Also, very Interesting to see the rising use of 'are you calling me a racist', 'you think I'm a racist' being levelled at poc around here as a way of invalidating what they say.



So, if you pronounce someone a racist (albeit you usually don't have the front to do it outright - prefering snidey insinuations), they must accept that they are.  If they say that you have wrongly smeared them, then that's a tactic to silence you because you're a person of colour - making them a racist?

More dishonest bullshit.  Identity politics top trumps bullshit, to shut others down as a cover for your complete lack of any meaningful politics.

You've been found out, again.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

You lot aren't very pleasant to each other. Sad times.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2017)

"You lot.."


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

brogdale said:


> "You lot.."



Them lot if it doesn't include you. Do you spend your time making very mean personal comments at other posters and engaging in feuds?


----------



## Santino (Jan 4, 2017)

Lots of people wasting time making personal comments and engaging in feuds. Sad!


----------



## Santino (Jan 4, 2017)

My comments are the best comments. Everyone says so. Critics can't handle that. Sad!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Them lot if it doesn't include you. Do you spend your time making very mean personal comments at other posters and engaging in feuds?


As it happens, I don't believe that I do...but neither would I distinguish myself from fellow forum members by using the collective "you lot".


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 4, 2017)

brogdale said:


> As it happens, I don't believe that I do...but neither would I distinguish myself from fellow forum members by using the collective "you lot".



Then you must feel very righteous. There are many posters on this forum that feel the need to engage in such personal feuds. Most of them have a number of people on ignore. I regard them as "them lot". They seem to be very mean to each other.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Then you must feel very righteous. There are many posters on this forum that feel the need to engage in such personal feuds. Most of them have a number of people on ignore. I regard them as "them lot". They seem to be very mean to each other.


BIG on projecting feelings, aren't you?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Anyway, back to the topic.

Kenan Malik has reworked the essay I posted a link to (and excerpts from) here a few days ago for the Observer. I happen to think the previous version was a stronger essay, but he nevertheless makes good points. 

He writes:

"Politically, the sense of the collective has been expressed in two broad forms: the politics of identity and the politics of solidarity. The former stresses attachment to common identities based on such categories as race, nation, gender or culture. The difference between leftwing and rightwing forms of identity politics derives, in part, from the categories of identity that are deemed particularly important. The politics of solidarity draws people into a collective not because of a given identity but to further a political or social goal. *Where the politics of identity divides, the politics of solidarity finds collective purpose across the fissures of race or gender, sexuality or religion, culture or nation. But it is the politics of solidarity that has crumbled over the past two decades as the left has declined.* For many, the only form of collective politics left is that rooted in identity. Hence the rise of identity-based populist movements." (my bold).

That's the point being made. 

Some people seem to be misunderstanding that, thinking that in  analysing reasons for the flight to the  populist right the analyst is _excusing_ racism. 

"Having lost their traditional means through which to vent disaffection, and in an age in which class politics has little meaning, many working class voters have come to express themselves through the language of identity politics; not the identity politics of the left, but that of the right, the politics of nationalism and xenophobia, that provides the fuel for many populist movements."

The "left" has descended into a politics of division rather than solidarity. When the mainstream left (i.e. The Labour Party in the U.K.) adopted a strategy of managerialism, of being 'good stewards' of capitalism, it abandoned solidarity and ceased to even try to represent the working class, and in its place came the myriad of vying identities. 

At the same time as the working class came to see that Labour did not represent it, the liberal chattering class also demonstrated that identity politics were in the ascendancy. A politics of division and confusion, dissipating collective endeavour. A politics where high paid Guardian columnists can imply that they are more oppressed than an unemployed white working class man, because they are women, for example. It's this politics of division that has pushed people into the hands of the reactionary right.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Should have linked to the reworked essay:

A CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY OR OF LIBERALISM?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> It's this politics of division that has *pushed *people into the hands of the reactionary right.


Yep.


> “if you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere”


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Anyway, back to the topic.
> 
> Kenan Malik has reworked the essay I posted a link to (and excerpts from) here a few days ago for the Observer. I happen to think the previous version was a stronger essay, but he nevertheless makes good points.
> 
> ...



Good stuff. But not all 'Guardian' women's writing is reactionary. There is plenty of feminist writing that is class based and internationalist. The reactionary stuff sadly leads to a bonfire of the lot.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Good stuff. But not all 'Guardian' women's writing is reactionary.


Didn't seek to imply that it was.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 5, 2017)

Athos said:


> So, if you pronounce someone a racist (albeit you usually don't have the front to do it outright - prefering snidey insinuations), they must accept that they are.  If they say that you have wrongly smeared them, then that's a tactic to silence you because you're a person of colour - making them a racist?
> 
> More dishonest bullshit.  Identity politics top trumps bullshit, to shut others down as a cover for your complete lack of any meaningful politics.
> 
> You've been found out, again.



What a disgusting little man you are.
That's what we've found out, again.
The depths that you will plumb to get some attention. The shitty, dishonest tactics you will use.
The accusations you will make.
The cover up story you will attempt.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

On the topic of non-reactionary feminist writing, there's an excellent collection of writing in a book I have called Women Against Fundamentalism, showing how solidarity can be forged at the same time as, for example, criticising misogyny within Muslim cultures.

There's an interview with contributors here: 25 years: women working against fundamentalism in the UK


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> What a disgusting little man you are.
> That's what we've found out, again.
> The depths that you will plumb to get some attention. The shitty, dishonest tactics you will use.
> The accusations you will make.
> The cover up story you will attempt.



Rage on. Because it's all there, for anyone to see.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2017)

Well done for trying danny la rouge ; I did try yesterday...but...


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2017)

Sorry Danny. Will try to resist getting sucked into the bullshit, and derailing the thread.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 5, 2017)

Athos said:


> So, if you pronounce someone a racist (albeit you usually don't have the front to do it outright - prefering snidey insinuations), they must accept that they are.  If they say that you have wrongly smeared them, then that's a tactic to silence you because you're a person of colour - making them a racist?
> 
> More dishonest bullshit.  Identity politics top trumps bullshit, to shut others down as a cover for your complete lack of any meaningful politics.
> 
> You've been found out, again.



In my experience, people who scream "identity politics" at others are the ones trying to shut down debate.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> *Where the politics of identity divides, the politics of solidarity finds collective purpose across the fissures of race or gender, sexuality or religion, culture or nation. But it is the politics of solidarity that has crumbled over the past two decades as the left has declined.*


For me the anti-humanism that has become so prevalent (I don't know about anyone else but I hear stuff like "most people are idiots" quite commonly) is a major reason for this crumbling of solidarity. We surely have to start from a point that recognises the universal values of humankind and the positive impacts that human society produces (while not ignoring the damage that humans can cause).

If most people are idiots, many racists, people naturally selfish, humankind only capable causing damage then the individualism of neoliberalism becomes a rational choice.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> For me the anti-humanism that has become so prevalent (I don't know about anyone else but I here stuff like "most people are idiots" quite commonly) is a major reason for this crumbling of solidarity. We surely have to start from a point that recognises the universal values of humankind and the positive impacts that human society produces (while not ignoring the damage that humans can cause).
> 
> If most people are idiots, many racists, people naturally selfish, humankind only capable causing damage then the individualism of neoliberalism becomes a rational choice.


Good post. 

"We surely have to start from a point that recognises the universal values of humankind and the positive impacts that human society produces (while not ignoring the damage that humans can cause)."

That absolutely must be the starting point.


----------



## treelover (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> On the topic of non-reactionary feminist writing, there's an excellent collection of writing in a book I have called Women Against Fundamentalism, showing how solidarity can be forged at the same time as, for example, criticising misogyny within Muslim cultures.
> 
> There's an interview with contributors here: 25 years: women working against fundamentalism in the UK



You are the author?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> In my experience, people who scream "identity politics" at others are the ones trying to shut down debate.


'Screaming' at identity politics is not the same as denying that there are issues to do with women's rights, racism, LGBT discrimination, etc. It is merely wishing to place those issues into the wider structural context, as the writers in dlr's link in post 1095 are doing. That's not shutting down debate; it is opening the debate up. 

I'm absolutely with dlr on that - neglecting that context means you miss vital points and destroy solidarity, reducing society to vertical strips of identities in a way that ultimately only serves those in power. The ridiculous Women's Equality Party is a perfect example of this, stripping the issues of any of the context the writers dlr is linking to rightly insist upon, and ending up little more than a group of extremely privileged people acting, probably unconsciously, on behalf of their privileged class - _We must have more female CEOs_. At best, they are ineffectual. At worst, they hijack issues in a way that throws those with fewer privileges than them under the bus.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

treelover said:


> You are the author?


No.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Good post.
> 
> "We surely have to start from a point that recognises the universal values of humankind and the positive impacts that human society produces (while not ignoring the damage that humans can cause)."
> 
> That absolutely must be the starting point.


What are 'the universal values of humankind'?


----------



## rutabowa (Jan 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> What are 'the universal values of humankind'?


Yes let's sort this out once and for all then there will be a lot less arguments.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> Yes let's sort this out once and for all then there will be a lot less arguments.


FEWER!!


----------



## rutabowa (Jan 5, 2017)

"A lot less arguing" then.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 5, 2017)

I think it'll lead to more arguing, as we've seen already


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 5, 2017)

Can we return to the question of what can be done and explore possible resolutions/solutions/change factors?



danny la rouge said:


> Good post.
> 
> "We surely have to start from a point that recognises the universal values of humankind and the positive impacts that human society produces (while not ignoring the damage that humans can cause)."
> 
> That absolutely must be the starting point.





Pickman's model said:


> What are 'the universal values of humankind'?



The only way I have ever seen unity develop which was otherwise not there has been through building _trust_...it took time but was achieved by focusing on common needs/purpose... It took motivation and interaction, developing shared memories and shared achievements. It was no utopian walk in the park, personal prejudices didn't disappear for many, but generally, as we made progress and 'good' things happened, people felt more connected and empowered. 

FTR I am talking about my experiences within the context of grassroots community led organising. So a much smaller 'context' yes, but IME the same complexities of class/race/gender are/can be  played out and have to be negotiated.

Earlier in the thread I think it was chilango that posted about his present experiences of similar in his community?


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> ...
> The only way I have ever seen unity develop which was otherwise not there has been through building _trust_...it took time but was achieved by *focusing on common needs/purpose*...


 (my emphasis)

Isn't this anathema to identity politics, the focus of which is the exact opposite i.e. what makes us different?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> What are 'the universal values of humankind'?


That was redsquirrel's phrase, but for me there is a universal basis to work on.  We're social animals, and like other social animals we have an inherent sense of empathy, fairness, altruism, solidarity, community spirit.  I think these things are the basis of a built-in 'moral' system: a set of social skills and attributes that evolved with us and in order to meet our circumstances.  It is a biological feature of our being. (For more on that see Stephen Jay Gould, Frans de Waal and others).  That is what is already there to build on.  It is capable of overcoming our capacity for the opposite of all those attributes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> That was redsquirrel's phrase, but for me there is a universal basis to work on.  We're social animals, and like other social animals we have an inherent sense of empathy, fairness, altruism, solidarity, community spirit.  I think these things are the basis of a built-in 'moral' system: a set of social skills and attributes that evolved with us and in order to meet our circumstances.  It is a biological feature of our being. (For more on that see Stephen Jay Gould, Frans de Waal and others).  That is what is already there to build on.  It is capable of overcoming our capacity for the opposite of all those attributes.


We could learn a thing or two from bonobos about how to get along with one another (and I mean more than just having constant sex!). We're also social strivers, which is more like chimps than bonobos, but we're more like bonobos than chimps in the way that we keep juvenile traits into adulthood. 

If you've not read it, I hugely recommend Carl Safina's Beyond Words, which touches on some of this. He calls it 'self-domestication', and sees it as an ongoing process within modern humans.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We could learn a thing or two from bonobos about how to get along with one another (and I mean more than just having constant sex!). We're also social strivers, which is more like chimps than bonobos, but we're more like bonobos than chimps in the way that we keep juvenile traits into adulthood.
> 
> If you've not read it, I hugely recommend Carl Safina's Beyond Words, which touches on some of this. He calls it 'self-domestication', and sees it as an ongoing process within modern humans.


I haven't read it. But I have been meaning to.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> That was redsquirrel's phrase, but for me there is a universal basis to work on.  We're social animals, and like other social animals we have an inherent sense of empathy, fairness, altruism, solidarity, community spirit.



yeah to our own tribes, everyone else is an enemy. if yer going on a biological line you gotta factor in tribalisim.

or do chimps and that all get along in a happy little bubble of empathy and fairness? 

them fuckers lead their families away from food to go back and eat it all themselves


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> I haven't read it. But I have been meaning to.


Totally off-topic now, but it's the single best book on animal behaviour that I've read, and I've read quite a lot. He adopts exactly the attitude that I would adopt - sure, we shouldn't anthropomorphise, but the opposite danger is possibly even worse, and indeed absurd - the danger of considering humans to be outside the process somehow and assuming that other animals do not have any of the mental traits that have evolved in us just because we can't _prove_ they have them, even when it's the obvious answer. He makes a strong argument that these kinds of assumptions, normally made in the name of scientific rigour, are in reality deeply _unscientific_.  

He deconstructs a lot of this kind of idiocy. He also provides some beautiful, and heartbreaking, accounts of the lives of elephants, wolves and killer whales.


----------



## rutabowa (Jan 5, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> or do chimps and that all get along in a happy little bubble of empathy and fairness?


Imagine if you gave chimps guns and religion *takes bong hit*


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> or do chimps and that all get along in a happy little bubble of empathy and fairness?


No, but bonobos largely do.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> Imagine if you gave chimps guns and religion *takes bong hit*




fuck that man they are already on the evolutionary path of taking us out, hunting with spears they made ffs


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, but bonobos largely do.




what about when they encounter foreign unknown bonobos?

everyone always goes rose tinted when talking about monkeys being our cousins, that dont mean only the good traits of humanity.

they lie they steal they kill. just like we do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> what about when they encounter foreign unknown bonobos?


Bit of mutual masturbation normally eases any tensions.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> what about when they encounter foreign unknown bonobos?


I recommend The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2017)

the bonobo only fucks so much  to release stress from fighting apparently. nice.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> what about when they encounter foreign unknown bonobos?
> 
> everyone always goes rose tinted when talking about monkeys being our cousins, that dont mean only the good traits of humanity.
> 
> they lie they steal they kill. just like we do.



Bonobos aren't monkeys.  And yes, they're a bit of a special case - probably because they evolved away from chimps in an area with plentiful food and few mortal dangers. But don't most of us live our lives in areas with plentiful food and few mortal dangers?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Bit of mutual masturbation normally eases any tensions.




use google. i just did. yer wrong.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2017)

Make up sex is the best kind.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2017)

Athos said:


> Make up sex is the best kind.



only with their own tribe, they eat the ones they've fucked up from fighting. classy.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2017)

Not sure this monkey business is taking the discussion anywhere, really.


----------



## rutabowa (Jan 5, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> only with their own tribe, they eat the ones they've fucked up from fighting. classy.


Yeh I was going to say, pretty sure that chimps and stuff eat their enemies a fair bit more than humans mostly do. Not saying humans NEVER do it.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2017)

Athos said:


> Not sure this monkey business is taking the discussion anywhere, really.




it never does, next they'll be using it as a defence for sexual harassment.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> Yeh I was going to say, pretty sure that chimps and stuff eat their enemies a fair bit more than humans mostly do. Not saying humans NEVER do it.




(((jeffrey dahmer)))


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> For me the anti-humanism that has become so prevalent (I don't know about anyone else but I hear stuff like "most people are idiots" quite commonly) is a major reason for this crumbling of solidarity. We surely have to start from a point that recognises the universal values of humankind and the positive impacts that human society produces (while not ignoring the damage that humans can cause).
> 
> If most people are idiots, many racists, people naturally selfish, humankind only capable causing damage then the individualism of neoliberalism becomes a rational choice.


Yep to all of that as long as we can still calmly discuss the propensity of folk to be swayed, influenced or duped by neoliberal, cultural hegemony.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> Yeh I was going to say, pretty sure that chimps and stuff eat their enemies a fair bit more than humans mostly do. Not saying humans NEVER do it.


if you're including bonobos in your 'and stuff', you're wrong. Fair bit of confusion here between bonobos and chimps. 

But yes, massive derail.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> if you're including bonobos in your 'and stuff', you're wrong. Fair bit of confusion here between bonobos and chimps.
> 
> But yes, massive derail.




yeah cus i googled 'chimp' instead of 'bonobo' 

BBC - Earth News - Wild bonobo mother ape eats own infant in DR Congo

'Last year, however, that more peaceful image was shattered when scientists discovered that bonobos do kill and eat monkeys.'


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 5, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> Yeh I was going to say, pretty sure that chimps and stuff eat their enemies a fair bit more than humans mostly do. Not saying humans NEVER do it.



Perhaps we do it metaphorically?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Perhaps we do it metaphorically?




*¯\_(ツ)_/¯*

*start a thread about it.*


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> yeah cus i googled 'chimp' instead of 'bonobo'
> 
> BBC - Earth News - Wild bonobo mother ape eats own infant in DR Congo
> 
> 'Last year, however, that more peaceful image was shattered when scientists discovered that bonobos do kill and eat monkeys.'


What does that prove? The mother ate a dead infant. Could be all kinds of reasons for that, and it is anthropomorphising to transfer our taboo against eating dead human bodies onto bonobos. 

As for bonobos hunting and eating other species of animal, so they're not vegetarian? Again, what does that prove exactly?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2017)

lol ok then

kinda proves they aint as cool as you reckon they are doesnt it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Anyway, I said we were _social_ animals. I didn't say we never bicker and veer off topic...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> lol ok then
> 
> kinda proves they aint as cool as you reckon they are doesnt it.


nope.


----------



## rutabowa (Jan 5, 2017)

I can confirm that if I had been brought up a bonobo I woudl have been totally Fucked (metaphorically, and probably literally too before being eaten by my mother)


----------



## rutabowa (Jan 5, 2017)

^kind of wish that post wasn't on it's own at the start of a new page really


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2017)

thing is pointing at bonobos or chimps has only limited value. hom sap is a very different animal for any number of reasons. I'm not having the 'we share 99% of dna!!!elevn1' discussion. The thing where we talk about hom sap by looking at its close relatives- well its an interesting thing but we can't read too much into it imo. Without wishing to sound all HUMANS PREVAIL we have, and have had since before recorded history, language and fire and all sorts of technological advances that came along- social technologies. Systems of wealth marking, taboos against kin fucking and eating human flesh (yes I know, some still did in living memory but even that was highly ritualised). Basicaly we have a toolkit that is not really comprable to what other animals have, even the ones that look most like us. 

anyways this is veering way off t...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> thing is pointing at bonobos or chimps has only limited value. hom sap is a very different animal for any number of reasons. I'm not having the 'we share 99% of dna!!!elevn1' discussion. The thing where we talk about hom sap by looking at its close relatives- well its an interesting thing but we can't read too much into it imo. Without wishing to sound all HUMANS PREVAIL we have, and have had since before recorded history, language and fire and all sorts of technological advances that came along- social technologies. Systems of wealth marking, taboos against kin fucking and eating human flesh (yes I know, some still did in living memory but even that was highly ritualised). Basicaly we have a toolkit that is not really comprable to what other animals have, even the ones that look most like us.
> 
> anyways this is veering way off t...


Yes and no. Taboos grow out of an often very deep evolutionary heritage. The aversion to kin-fucking is a very good example of that, and something we share with a very large number of animals.

This is something I think Freud got very wrong. Moral codes did not emerge in order to curtail our basest urges, as he suggested. Quite the reverse. They emerged as an expression of some of those urges, including such things as favouring fairness, which, as danny pointed out, we share with other social animals. Normally incompletely, as they use the imperfect tool of language, they codify or expand on something that was already understood.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 5, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> ^kind of wish that post wasn't on it's own at the start of a new page really


((((chimpbonobowankers)))))


----------



## emanymton (Jan 5, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> Imagine if you gave chimps guns and religion *takes bong hit*


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> That was redsquirrel's phrase, but for me there is a universal basis to work on.  We're social animals, and like other social animals we have an inherent sense of empathy, fairness, altruism, solidarity, community spirit.  I think these things are the basis of a built-in 'moral' system: a set of social skills and attributes that evolved with us and in order to meet our circumstances.  It is a biological feature of our being.



A 'built-in moral system'? I think that's described in philosophical terms as 'moral absolutism'; ie there is a 'correct' moral system. We just have to determine what it is.  And once it's determined, it can be applied to all those people in the world who operate under different moral systems.

There are a number of evangelical religions in the world that believe they have the truth of the 'universal moral code', and they have spent centuries attempting to convert everyone else to it.


Another thought arises from the quoted post: to what extent are personality traits, character etc., apart from the ones listed, 'biological features of our being'?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

People seem happy to cherry-pick the 'good' attributes of human character - ie the altruism, the empathy etc, and endorse them as being part of our innate character.

Looked at from the perspective of certain Eastern philosophies, positive and negative attributes of anything don't exist in separation from their counterparts. To put it most simplistically, 'good' and 'evil' aren't separate things - they are the two ends of a continuum. 

Looked at that way, anger, an impulse to violence, selfishness, etc. are as much innate attributes of our being as are all the good attributes that everyone likes. The way to better understanding of ourselves and others, and the way to more balanced dealings with one another, is to stop pretending that that isn't the case.

Understanding that selfishness, anger etc are innate aspects of our being, is not the same thing as allowing them to have free rein. It's a recognition that they are present and will play some part in our actions and interactions, and that they must be dealt with.

Pretending that it's otherwise, won't make them go away.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> A 'built-in moral system'? I think that's described in philosophical terms as 'moral absolutism'; ie there is a 'correct' moral system. We just have to determine what it is.  And once it's determined, it can be applied to all those people in the world who operate under different moral systems.
> 
> There are a number of evangelical religions in the world that believe they have the truth of the 'universal moral code', and they have spent centuries attempting to convert everyone else to it.
> 
> ...


No, it describes or suggests the idea of how we interact and this structure is based on what we have come to call - via various ways - morals. The capacity to have morals does not mean that only one set of morality exists or can be produced. Like the capacity to speak doesn't really mean you have to say this shit.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Christ, we're making heavy weather of a throw away remark.

First off, I wish people would read what I actually wrote:

Privileged people calling less privileged people "stupid" doesn't seem to be working...

I'm _not_ cherry picking the good points. I quite clearly said each has a negative opposite. 

What I did say was that we are social animals and evolved traits that enable us to function socially. The roots of these pre-date our species. Of course they do. Our morality systems are constructed post hoc _upon_ these foundations. That seems uncontroversial to me.  

When I made the remark I was merely saying that we can and should agree on universal values. There are things we can and should be appalled by. It is a cop out to say at every level that we "mustn't judge". I'd argue that we must.

If people here are going to disagree about that, then we have a long way to go. But that shouldn't stop us trying.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> A 'built-in moral system'? I think that's described in philosophical terms as 'moral absolutism'; ie there is a 'correct' moral system. We just have to determine what it is.  And once it's determined, it can be applied to all those people in the world who operate under different moral systems.


Studies have been done with infants showing that they are developing a sense of, for instance, fairness at an age of just a few months. The suggestion is that, as butchersapron alluded to, we're born with a predisposition to look for something like 'right' and 'wrong' in a very similar way to how we are born with a predisposition to look for something like language, and that we're very active in our acquisition of these things.  

To what extent the content of what is right or wrong is then culturally determined is a separate point, no? If we really do have a more or less innate sense of fairness, one that we don't learn from others, there may be limits to what we will accept as fair, and if we're born with a predisposition to look for binaries (right/wrong, good/bad), that will have an influence too, but it seems pretty clear to me that, just as we can learn any language, whatever framework we're born with contains enormous room for post-natal development. That extreme flexibility is a very important part of what humans are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> For me the anti-humanism that has become so prevalent (I don't know about anyone else but I hear stuff like "most people are idiots" quite commonly) is a major reason for this crumbling of solidarity. We surely have to start from a point that recognises the universal values of humankind and the positive impacts that human society produces (while not ignoring the damage that humans can cause).
> 
> If most people are idiots, many racists, people naturally selfish, humankind only capable causing damage then the individualism of neoliberalism becomes a rational choice.



If people said "most people are ignorant", they might have a point. The difference between ignorance and idiocy being that someone can choose to educate themselves out of ignorance on a subject or subjects, whereas idiocy implies a condition which one cannot move beyond.


----------



## Backatcha Bandit (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Studies have been done with infants showing that they are developing a sense of, for instance, fairness at an age of just a few months.



Plus plenty of this sort of thing:

Evolution of conditional cooperation under multilevel selection : Scientific Reports

(Modelling to discover 'evolutionarily stable' behaviours).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

Backatcha Bandit said:


> Plus plenty of this sort of thing:
> 
> Evolution of conditional cooperation under multilevel selection : Scientific Reports
> 
> (Modelling to discover 'evolutionarily stable' behaviours).


Martin Nowak has written a really good book about this stuff, Supercooperators. He did a massively controversial paper (rubbished by Dawkins, among others) with Wilson and Carnita about the development of eusociality, which incurred the wrath of Dawkins for invoking multilevel selection. I've linked to this before, but looking around at recent commentaries on it, the argument appears still to be raging seven years on.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> What I did say was that we are social animals and evolved traits that enable us to function socially.



Social functioning has been occurring so long as people have been living in groups, and as you say, even before people were people. Social behavior is of course evident in animals, as well.

But 'social' in 'social functioning', means just that - the interaction amongst individuals when they interact within groups. It is something broader than the definition of 'social' as something similar to 'sociable'.

Looked at that way, 'social interaction' has and does occurs in many ways. Group or herd domination by 'alpha' males, is a method of social interaction. Competition between two groups via war to obtain scarce resources, is a method of social interaction.

Cooperation in order to advance common objectives is also a method of social interaction, but by no means the only one, and most likely not the most prevalent one.

That is because the other, 'negative' character traits, are as much a part of what we are, as the 'positive' traits; and the negative traits have seen expression in human interaction, throughout human history and into  the present.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

You're having your own argument there Johnny Canuck3.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Cooperation in order to advance common objectives is also a method of social interaction, but by no means the only one, and most likely not the most prevalent one.


Can't agree with that at all. Cooperation within various groups is the definitive human day-to-day interaction. We'd be dead within days without it as the vast majority of us are entirely incapable of looking after ourselves on our own.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Poster: it's raining cats and dogs.
Johnny: you can't simply ignore the dogs.
Poster: I said cats _and_ dogs.
Johnny: listen, the dogs are as much of the picture as the cats.
Poster: good grief.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Studies have been done with infants showing that they are developing a sense of, for instance, fairness at an age of just a few months. The suggestion is that, as butchersapron alluded to, we're born with a predisposition to look for something like 'right' and 'wrong' in a very similar way to how we are born with a predisposition to look for something like language, and that we're very active in our acquisition of these things.



That's in no way inconsistent with what I'm saying - which is, that both 'positive' and 'negative' traits are inherent to the human character. So it's not surprising that studies show babies have a rudimentary sense of fairness - but they also have a sense of selfishness, anger, etc.

As for whether or not we're born with a predisposition to look for right and wrong, that position advances from a dualistic approach to existence - and everyone subscribes to the dualistic view.

Deciding that we're born with a predisposition to a dualistic view, presupposes that the dualistic approach is the only one - which it isn't.

I'm not sure what 'born with a predisposition to look for language' means. We are born into language-using cultures, with the biological tools to develop the use of language. Nothing is 'looked for'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm not sure what 'born with a predisposition to look for language' means. We are born into language-using cultures, with the biological tools to develop the use of language. *Nothing is 'looked for'.*


It absolutely is. If I have the energy, I'll look it up for you.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can't agree with that at all. Cooperation within various groups is the definitive human day-to-day interaction. We'd be dead within days without it as the vast majority of us are entirely incapable of looking after ourselves on our own.



We operate in a capitalist system which employs a carrot and stick approach to keep the working classes in line. 

Women do the disproportionate amount of work around the home, for cultural reasons, and have faced millenia of unequal treatment mostly because they aren't as physically strong as males.

There are many aspects of our daily lives that fit better within the category of coercion, as opposed to cooperation, imo.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> When I made the remark I was merely saying that we can and should agree on universal values.



And I made the remark that certain large evangelical religions have come to internal agreement about universal values, and have spent centuries trying to impose those 'universal values' on the nonbelievers of the world.

I was saying that what you're describing is moral absolutism, and it leads to tyranny when those who believe they have discovered the 'universal values', attempt to make others accept them.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> We operate in a capitalist system which employs a carrot and stick approach to keep the working classes in line.
> 
> Women do the disproportionate amount of work around the home, for cultural reasons, and have faced millenia of unequal treatment mostly because they aren't as physically strong as males.
> 
> There are many aspects of our daily lives that fit better within the category of coercion, as opposed to cooperation, imo.


Jesus.

The point of the discussion is not whether or not unfair behaviour  happens (did you think anyone was saying it didn't/couldn't/isn't in our nature? - They weren't) but whether we have the capacity to learn to move beyond it. We do.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> And I made the remark that certain large evangelical religions have come to internal agreement about universal values, and have spent centuries trying to impose those 'universal values' on the nonbelievers of the world.
> 
> I was saying that what you're describing is moral absolutism, and it leads to tyranny when those who believe they have discovered the 'universal values', attempt to make others accept them.


I'm not describing moral absolutism. I've explained why. 

What you're describing appears to be moral relativist cowardice. "Mustn't judge". Well some things should be judged.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

Ha. Just seen your tagline. You've been watching _Community_.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ha. Just seen your tagline. You've been watching _Community_.


I strongly identify with Abed. Perhaps more than any other fictional character.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm not describing moral absolutism. I've explained why.
> 
> What you're describing appears to be moral relativist cowardice. "Mustn't judge". Well some things should be judged.



No, I'm counselling caution. Many people in many places in many times have determined that they have 'the answer' when it comes to 'universal values', morality, whatever.

Mostly, those situations have turned out badly - at least for those who disagree. 

So I'm saying that lots of long hard thought should go into it, before we embark on another go-round of 'universal  human values'.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> No, I'm counselling caution. Many people in many places in many times have determined that they have 'the answer' when it comes to 'universal values', morality, whatever.
> 
> Mostly, those situations have turned out badly - at least for those who disagree.
> 
> So I'm saying that lots of long hard thought should go into it, before we embark on another go-round of 'universal  human values'.


Well, it wasn't my phrase, but we're too far down the line to worry about that now. My point is that there are _already_ common traits inherent in our being. These are not the high level moral systems that are build post hoc upon our biological heritage, but the things we are all capable of by dint of being social animals. Which we are. (And note that does not imply denying the fact that we're also capable of anti social behaviour. Quite the reverse as it happens).


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, it wasn't my phrase, but we're too far down the line to worry about that now. My point is that there are _already_ common traits inherent in our being. These are not the high level moral systems that are build post hoc upon our biological heritage, but the things we are all capable of by dint of being social animals. Which we are. (And note that does not imply denying the fact that we're also capable of anti social behaviour. Quite the reverse as it happens).



I agree that there are traits inherent in our being, including traits that militate toward cooperation and selflessness; along with traits that militate toward selfishness and aggression.

The trick is in coming to a fuller understanding of our complete natures, and figuring how our individual natures are best translated into group activity.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> That was redsquirrel's phrase, but for me there is a universal basis to work on.  We're social animals, and like other social animals we have an inherent sense of empathy, fairness, altruism, solidarity, community spirit.  I think these things are the basis of a built-in 'moral' system: a set of social skills and attributes that evolved with us and in order to meet our circumstances.  It is a biological feature of our being. (For more on that see Stephen Jay Gould, Frans de Waal and others). * That is what is already there to build on.  It is capable of overcoming our capacity for the opposite of all those attributes.*


(my emphasis)
I completely agree with this. And people should note the last sentence, and that I said "start from" not finish with. 

Of course there's going to be conflict and violence between people no one is suggesting otherwise, but from the foundation that danny outlines above we can then start to build systems to minimise conflict and maximise cooperation.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I agree that there are traits inherent in our being, including traits that militate toward cooperation and selflessness; along with traits that militate toward selfishness and aggression.
> 
> The trick is in coming to a fuller understanding of our complete natures, and figuring how our individual natures are best translated into group activity.


This is where I've been saying you're arguing with yourself. Nobody is disagreeing.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

Isn't it lovely when we all get along?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Isn't it lovely when we all get along?


But also sometimes we don't.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

Now Danny: let's try to accentuate the positive.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Christ, we're making heavy weather of a throw away remark.
> 
> First off, I wish people would read what I actually wrote:
> 
> ...


Also I really don't see in the wider culture any cherry picking of good points, in fact quote the opposite.

Over the last 30 years there's been a real death of humanism, instead it's become common to simply write off humans as naturally selfish (which they are of course, but they are equally "naturally" generous), that no real change to the political systems is possible, that most people are stupid and/or dupes and/or racists, that we're a plague etc

I mean a while ago I read this, in the forward the editor talks about the difficulty in selling the idea to many people. The modern world is far more intent on cherry picking "bad" attributes than "good" ones.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> cherry picking "bad" attributes than "good" ones.


Completely agree. I blame TH Huxley and his misunderstanding of Darwin. He did a huge disservice to subsequent understanding of evolution: he imposed upon it a Calvinist doctrine of original sin. It's time we restored the picture and removed Huxley's muddy varnish.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Completely agree. I blame TH Huxley and his misunderstanding of Darwin. He did a huge disservice to subsequent understanding of evolution: he imposed upon it a Calvinist doctrine of original sin. It's time we restored the picture and removed Huxley's muddy varnish.


You've spurred me to read _Evolution and Ethics_ . Seems Huxley was thinking along the same lines as Freud did later. He shows the dangers of assuming other animals to be 'lower' and humans to be 'higher' when he says this:



> Wolves could not hunt in packs except for the real, though unexpressed, understanding that they should not attack one another during the chase. The most rudimentary polity is a pack of men living under the like tacit, [57] or expressed, understanding; and having made the very important advance upon wolf society, that they agree to use the force of the whole body against individuals who violate it and in favour of those who observe it.



He's nearly there except that he's wrong about wolves. Wolves punish transgressors. They have morals, too. He, Freud and others could not see that as they could not see how they were wrong about humans. 

This is still all too relevant, as you say. It's exactly what Freud thought:



> Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.



A muddy varnish indeed.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> YThey have morals, too.



Difficult to infer motivation in a non-linguistic species.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Difficult to infer motivation in a non-linguistic species.


Through careful observation, it's not so hard. Lots of pet owners can tell you that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Difficult to infer motivation in a non-linguistic species.



Not really. Mutual aid between members of the same animal species for the benefit of the community means conformity to particular behaviours, and conformity to a set of normative behavioural standards is "moral".


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Difficult to infer motivation in a non-linguistic species.


I'd quibble with the use of the word "morals", but I then try to be careful when I use it of human society too. However he's quite right that wolves have social 'codes'. Anyone who has a dog can see that. If you've done the trick of pretending to 'cry' (making a 'hurt' sound) when a puppy accidentally nips you with its teeth you'll know that it only takes a couple of goes before it learns to stop doing it. 

Experiments have shown that dogs have a sense of what we might call fairness. They'll stop doing tasks if they get a worse reward than another individual. Wolves live in cooperative societies. Of course they have ways of doing that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

Observers can look at animals, see behavior that looks moral, and then anthropomorphize, saying that because what they're seeing looks like something that humans do, it must be the same thing [or arise from the same psychological antecedents] as what humans do.

That's an error. What motivates a dog to act in a way that seems familiar to humans might arise from the same antecedents, or not. There's no sure way to know, because we can't discuss it with the dog.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not really. Mutual aid between members of the same animal species for the benefit of the community means conformity to particular behaviours, and conformity to a set of normative behavioural standards is "moral".



It's quite possible that all animal behaviors are  completely determined by biological factors, meaning the animal has no choice, meaning 'morality' doesn't enter into it.

The animal doesn't 'choose' to do 'right' or 'wrong'. It may simply be acting in the way that's biologically determined.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've spurred me to read _Evolution and Ethics_ . Seems Huxley was thinking along the same lines as Freud did later. He shows the dangers of assuming other animals to be 'lower' and humans to be 'higher' when he says this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it."

And how are we supposed to do that if it "isn't in our nature"?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Wolves live in cooperative societies. Of course they have ways of doing that.



Bees live in cooperative societies: are bees moral actors as well?

Is cooperation the test for moral behavior?


----------



## alfajobrob (Jan 5, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> thing is pointing at bonobos or chimps has only limited value. hom sap is a very different animal for any number of reasons. I'm not having the 'we share 99% of dna!!!elevn1' discussion. The thing where we talk about hom sap by looking at its close relatives- well its an interesting thing but we can't read too much into it imo. Without wishing to sound all HUMANS PREVAIL we have, and have had since before recorded history, language and fire and all sorts of technological advances that came along- social technologies. Systems of wealth marking, taboos against kin fucking and eating human flesh (yes I know, some still did in living memory but even that was highly ritualised). Basicaly we have a toolkit that is not really comprable to what other animals have, even the ones that look most like us.
> 
> anyways this is veering way off t...



Master species eh...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's quite possible that all animal behaviors are  completely determined by biological factors, meaning the animal has no choice, meaning 'morality' doesn't enter into it.
> 
> The animal doesn't 'choose' to do 'right' or 'wrong'. It may simply be acting in the way that's biologically determined.


As may you and I, free will being an illusion. Also, you may be a zombie with no inner life, and maybe I'm the only consciousness in the universe.

That's the level you've descended to here. And it's not scientific. It is a very poor interpretation of the evidence with no explanatory or predictive power. Attributing to other animals such as dogs a point of view, intentions, motivations, feelings and desires, on the other hand, has a great deal of explanatory and predictive power.

Also, seems only polite given that they clearly do it to us: note the difference in reaction between a dog that's been trodden on by accident and one that's been kicked on purpose. They read intention into our actions alright.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Observers can look at animals, see behavior that looks moral, and then anthropomorphize, saying that because what they're seeing looks like something that humans do, it must be the same thing [or arise from the same psychological antecedents] as what humans do.
> 
> That's an error. What motivates a dog to act in a way that seems familiar to humans might arise from the same antecedents, or not. There's no sure way to know, because we can't discuss it with the dog.


You're the one anthropomorphising! It's not about seeing human traits in dogs, it's about understanding social traits in social animals. Of which we happen to be one, but there are many more non human social species: we're not the apex of evolution but a twig on the bush.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> free will being an illusion. .



Correct.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Bees live in cooperative societies: are bees moral actors as well?
> 
> Is cooperation the test for moral behavior?


Johnny, my advice to you is to read what I've actually said.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> You're the one anthropomorphising! It's not about seeing human traits in dogs, it's about understanding social traits in social animals. Of which we happen to be one, but there are many more non human social species: we're not the apex of evolution but a twig on the bush.



You've said that because social animals behave in social ways, that we can infer that they are motivated by 'morality'.

I'm saying that that's an error in reasoning.

Bees and ants are social creatures behaving in social ways. Does that make them moral actors?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You've said that because social animals behave in social ways, that we can infer that they are motivated by 'morality'.


No I haven't.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Johnny, my advice to you is to read what I've actually said.



You said this.



> Wolves live in cooperative societies.



I'm assuming that there was a reason you did so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's quite possible that all animal behaviors are  completely determined by biological factors, meaning the animal has no choice, meaning 'morality' doesn't enter into it.
> 
> The animal doesn't 'choose' to do 'right' or 'wrong'. It may simply be acting in the way that's biologically determined.



Biological determinism doesn't exist in higher species. What you believe is "quite possible" doesn't accord with generations of cognitive research with animals. Biological determinism doesn't allow for learning, and yet many species learn from experience.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> No I haven't.



I guess we're agreeing again: animals may or may not be motivated by morality, but there is no way we can determine that for sure. 

Agreed?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> You're the one anthropomorphising! It's not about seeing human traits in dogs, it's about understanding social traits in social animals. Of which we happen to be one, but there are many more non human social species: we're not the apex of evolution but a twig on the bush.


Yep. Humans are not the measure of all things, but dog traits and human traits have a fair old bit in common. It's why we get along so well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Biological determinism doesn't exist in higher species. What you believe is "quite possible" doesn't accord with generations of cognitive research with animals. Biological determinism doesn't allow for learning, and yet many species learn from experience.


Yeah, Skinner was very badly wrong. Another whose works have caused lasting damage.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> but dog traits and human traits have a fair old bit in common.



But that's not proof that the traits arise from the same psychological/brain antecedents.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. Humans are not the measure of all things, but dog traits and human traits have a fair old bit in common.* It's why we get along so well.*


1000's of years of 'relationship' has an impact.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> 1000's of years of 'relationship' has an impact.


Certainly. It's interesting that pet dogs have acquired many of the same modern diseases and neuroses as humans too. 

But wild wolves that are brought up tame also get along pretty well with humans.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Certainly. It's interesting that pet dogs have acquired many of the same modern diseases and neuroses as humans too.
> 
> But wild wolves that are brought up tame also get along pretty well with humans.


Codependency/coevolution. Also the fact that we are both for the most part  social beings and thrive on companionship.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But don't most of us live our lives in areas with plentiful food and few mortal dangers?


No

Next


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Certainly. It's interesting that pet dogs have acquired many of the same modern diseases and neuroses as humans too.
> 
> But wild wolves that are brought up tame also get along pretty well with humans.


Wild wolves that are brought up tame aren't wild


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You said this.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm assuming that there was a reason you did so.


The fact that they do. You seen then hunt? 

You appear to be anthropomorphising the word "cooperate".


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

Inferring morality in dogs because they exhibit traits similar to humans, is a logical error known as 'affirming the consequent'.

It goes like this:

Because people have morals, they are social with each other.

Dogs are social with each other.

Therefore, dogs have morals.

It doesn't follow.

Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia

The example given in the site:



> Arguments of the same form can sometimes seem superficially convincing, as in the following example:
> 
> If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
> I have a sore throat.
> ...



I find that it usually helps to break an argument down to its logical construction.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Studies have been done with infants showing that they are developing a sense of, for instance, fairness at an age of just a few months. The suggestion is that, as butchersapron alluded to, we're born with a predisposition to look for something like 'right' and 'wrong' in a very similar way to how we are born with a predisposition to look for something like language, and that we're very active in our acquisition of these things.
> 
> To what extent the content of what is right or wrong is then culturally determined is a separate point, no? If we really do have a more or less innate sense of fairness, one that we don't learn from others, there may be limits to what we will accept as fair, and if we're born with a predisposition to look for binaries (right/wrong, good/bad), that will have an influence too, but it seems pretty clear to me that, just as we can learn any language, whatever framework we're born with contains enormous room for post-natal development. That extreme flexibility is a very important part of what humans are.


So what you're saying is parents have no influence on their children in the first few months of life.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Through careful observation, it's not so hard. Lots of pet owners can tell you that.


Millions of PMs of support


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But that's not proof that the traits arise from the same psychological/brain antecedents.


How about examining brain organisation and chemistry and seeing the same mechanisms at play? Would that help? Cos it's been done.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. Humans are not the measure of all things, but dog traits and human traits have a fair old bit in common. It's why we get along so well.


That and thousands of years of selective breeding


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Inferring morality in dogs [...].


Mate, just have your own thread and do all the posts, that way you won't have to misrepresent anyone. Score.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Mate, just have your own thread and do all the posts, that way you won't have to misrepresent anyone. Score.


He'd misrepresent himself and start a one man barney


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Inferring morality in dogs because they exhibit traits similar to humans, is a logical error known as 'affirming the consequent'.
> 
> It goes like this:
> 
> ...



Not going to speak for others, but that's really nothing like what I've been arguing.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How about examining brain organisation and chemistry and seeing the same mechanisms at play? Would that help? Cos it's been done.



I wasn't aware that morality showed up on an MRI, PET or SPECT.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's nearly there except that he's wrong about wolves. Wolves punish transgressors.* They have morals, too.*


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

You and I are probably using the word 'morals' differently. Or perhaps you're inferring something special to human morals and sense of morality that I don't. I think that's a common thing to do - the flip-side of anthropomorphising, which is attributing undue, almost mystic, specialness to various evolved human traits.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

I'm going by this definition:



> *Definition of moral*
> 
> 1a :  of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <_moral_ judgments>b :  expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a _moral_poem>c :  conforming to a standard of right behaviord :  sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a _moral_ obligation>e :  capable of right and wrong action <a _moral_ agent>



Definition of MORAL

Which definition are you using?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He, Freud and others could not see that as they could not see how they were wrong about humans.
> 
> This is still all too relevant, as you say. It's exactly what Freud thought:
> 
> ...


Strange how right Freud was in one sentence and how wrong in another.


----------



## JimW (Jan 5, 2017)

There was a programme on just showing four different groups of  orcas having fed an individual with spine and fin deformities that couldn't hunt on its own but had reached the age of seventeen. 
Not sure if it moves the argument on but it was pretty cool. They weren't so nice to the seals.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2017)

A sense of right and wrong. That'll do it. 

I'll leave you here.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A sense of right and wrong. That'll do it.
> 
> I'll leave you here.



Which takes us right back to the beginning: you saying that wolves have a moral conception of right and wrong, and me asking 'how can we know that for sure?'


----------



## treelover (Jan 5, 2017)

What a mega derail!

carry on


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2017)

treelover said:


> What a mega derail!
> 
> carry on


Thank you for your permission


----------



## BigTom (Jan 6, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Which takes us right back to the beginning: you saying that wolves have a moral conception of right and wrong, and me asking 'how can we know that for sure?'



We can look at their behaviour and see them change as they learn from the reaction of their social group that certain actions are right or wrong.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 6, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> (my emphasis)
> I completely agree with this. And people should note the last sentence, and that I said "start from" not finish with.
> 
> Of course there's going to be conflict and violence between people no one is suggesting otherwise, but from the foundation that danny outlines above we can then start to build systems to minimise conflict and maximise cooperation.



One of the issues is, whilst few would disagree with you about the starting point we are having this discussion in context.

In my experience, the single most frustrating thing is feeling like there are no solutions/ways of changing things. Feeling impotent can nuture dismissiveness and belligerence. People hunker down and become rigid in their thinking and interacting as a way of self preservation.

Because of this it's simply not enough to tell people they are wrong and not offer up or be willing to model or to explore practical ways of applying theory or methods. Which is what this thread is about IMO.

What can be done? Can we explore possible resolutions/solutions/change factors? Do you have any examples from personal experience?

These questions are not exclusively aimed at you obviously.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2017)

The link I posted a couple of pages back gives a good example of a practical approach, Rutita1  : Nira Yuval-Davis and Sukhwant Dhaliwal, women actively campaigning against fundamentalism within ethnic minority groups, at the same time as challenging racism.  Real anti-fundamentalist anti-racist feminism, with a robust critique of top-down multiculturism.

25 years: women working against fundamentalism in the UK

"In London, Ken Livingstone's Greater London Council created resources for a whole new wave of secular, left, anti-racist and feminist projects that opened out political possibilities. But at the same time, *Livingstone was bolstering right wing religious groups that slipped through funding streams by projecting themselves as 'cultural projects'*."

"The issues that we had raised in our critique of multiculturalism became accentuated as the number of 'religious leaders' and representatives increased exponentially. They became a critical part of New Labour's neo liberal instrumentalisation of 'community' and they were given additional spaces within which to manoeuvre."

"...we also opposed the way in which the Stop the War Coalition responded to this new security state by building an alliance with factions of right wing Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami networks in Britain. At the time, there was little scrutiny of global fundamentalist networks by either anti-racist or feminist academics and activists."

"However, *there has been an entrenchment of religious identity politics* – something we spent decades contesting.

Asserting that rights need not be justified by religious texts or frameworks, but *must simply be available to everyone*, requires new struggles."

Their book, which I have in front of me, is full of chapters discussing their struggle to critique and challenge top-down multiculturalism, the reactionary misogynist fundamentalism it fostered, and racism.  It does this in a way that challenges identity politics.  (NYD describes in her chapter how she was rejected as a 'bona fide' anti-racist activist by some groups because she fell foul of a narrow definition of "Black").  The writers also critique the limitations of their organisation (WAF), so it's a useful read not merely a hagiography.  

But such approaches are ways of combating what went wrong, and showing how struggles must underline that the goals are for everyone.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> What can be done? Can we explore possible resolutions/solutions/change factors?



Why not start by questioning the efficacy of the approach currently in vogue across much of 'the left': identity politics. 

Earlier in the thread you said:


Rutita1 said:


> The only way I have ever seen unity develop which was otherwise not there has been through building _trust_...it took time but was achieved by focusing on common needs/purpose...



To which I replied:


Athos said:


> Isn't this anathema to identity politics, the focus of which is the exact opposite i.e. what makes us different?



Any thoughts?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 6, 2017)

its fuckin 8.45 am, lads

jesuuuus

find some shit to do


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Which takes us right back to the beginning: you saying that wolves have a moral conception of right and wrong, and me asking 'how can we know that for sure?'


Yes, we were going in circles. 

Problem is your 'for sure'. It's not really what science deals with. Explanations are based on the evidence (and the evidence includes us when studying animal behaviour). To test those explanations, you ask things like what predictive power those explanations have. These are scientific things. 

Until very recently, asking questions about animal minds could lose you your scientific career. People would be warned off it. That's changing now with the likes of Safina I mentioned and de Waal that danny mentioned, popularising views that have been held for a long time on the quiet by those who do the thousands of hard hours of observations involved in long-term field studies. And what people like Safina, de Waal, and many others, are increasingly stressing is that there is no scientific basis for assuming a rupture between human minds and the minds of other animals. That old canard that you need human language to be able to reason has been thoroughly debunked - phildwyer on here still clings to it, but it's patent nonsense. In neglecting the minds of other animals, we end up badly misunderstanding our own minds.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 6, 2017)

Unless anyone is trying to suggest that we should build a political coalition with the World's bonobo apes, great crested newts, chaffinches and krill, I am struggling to see any relevance to the opening post in the direction this thread is now headed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2017)

eoin_k said:


> Unless anyone is trying to suggest that we should build a political coalition with the worlds bonobo apes, great crested newts, chaffinches and krill, I am struggling to see any point to the direction this thread is now headed.


It's a bit of a derail. At least it's not a bunch of posters calling each other cunts any more.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2017)

eoin_k said:


> Unless anyone is trying to suggest that we should build a political coalition with the worlds bonobo apes, great crested newts, chaffinches and krill, I am struggling to see any point to the direction this thread is now headed.


It was a weird and wonderful detour that resulted from folk latching onto my phrase "social animal" as a descriptor of the human condition. We were just about out the other side of that tunnel, I thought, but maybe it was just a skylight...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> It was a weird and wonderful detour that resulted from folk latching onto my phrase "social animal" as a descriptor of the human condition. We were just about out the other side of that tunnel, I thought, but maybe it was just a skylight...


I had determined not to respond to jc3 any more. Sorry, couldn't resist the urge this morning.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2017)

New page, new theme.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 6, 2017)

I guess some animals enjoy privilege. In the wild, the alpha male of a pride of lions will mate will all the females. Or is that a pride of baboons? And domesticated animals will enjoy a kind of privilege, like being spoiled by their owners. The other day one of the dogs was being admired by someone and the owner said that "he thinks he's human". I thought that's wrong; it's you who thinks he's human.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2017)

Or maybe not.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2017)

#HumanPrivilege


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> #HumanPrivilege


Check it.


----------



## Libertad (Jan 6, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> In the wild, the alpha male of a pride of lions will mate will all the females. Or is that a pride of baboons?



Not so, I doubt very much whether a lion has ever mated with a baboon.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 6, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Not so, I doubt very much whether a lion has ever mated with a baboon.



I mean maybe the alpha male has a harem in either or both prides.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Not so, I doubt very much whether a lion has ever mated with a baboon.



You never heard of the fabled Liboon/Babion?


----------



## Libertad (Jan 6, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> I mean maybe the alpha male has a harem in either or both prides.



The alpha male lion will not have a harem in the baboon pride.


----------



## Libertad (Jan 6, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> You never heard of the fabled Liboon/Babion?



No but I've heard of the Babylion.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 6, 2017)

Libertad said:


> The alpha male lion will not have a harem in the baboon pride.



The moon is made of cheese


----------



## Libertad (Jan 6, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> The moon is made of cheese



There you go again with your unsubstantiated assertions.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 6, 2017)

Libertad said:


> There you go again with your unsubstantiated assertions.



You are a very nice person


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2017)

Libertad said:


> There you go again with your unsubstantiated assertions.



It would be lunacy to think any other whey.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 6, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Not so, I doubt very much whether a lion has ever mated with a baboon.


Vanilla!


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 6, 2017)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> I guess some animals enjoy privilege. In the wild, the alpha male of a pride of lions will mate will all the females. Or is that a pride of baboons? And domesticated animals will enjoy a kind of privilege, like being spoiled by their owners. The other day one of the dogs was being admired by someone and the owner said that "he thinks he's human". I thought that's wrong; it's you who thinks he's human.



>50% of male lions die as a result of violence with other male lions. I would see a troop of baboons as more analogous to human society - baboon society is very hierarchical, and while male lions must defeat other males to become a pack leader, the infant of a high-ranking baboon mother is itself also high-ranking without having to do anything. Surely that's more analogous to human society and the privilege we're talking about on this thread. 

In studies of similarly hierarchical vervet monkeys, it is observed that low-ranking individuals tend to be much more friendly towards individuals from rival troops, and also much less interested in defending territory, than their high-ranking 'betters'. Again, I see parallels here - those without privilege do not necessarily share the concerns of those with privilege over maintaining the existing order. Why should they?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> >50% of male lions die as a result of violence with other male lions. I would see a troop of baboons as more analogous to human society - baboon society is very hierarchical, and while male lions must defeat other males to become a pack leader, the infant of a high-ranking baboon mother is itself also high-ranking without having to do anything. Surely that's more analogous to human society and the privilege we're talking about on this thread.
> 
> In studies of similarly hierarchical vervet monkeys, it is observed that low-ranking individuals tend to be much more friendly towards individuals from rival troops, and also much less interested in defending territory, than their high-ranking 'betters'. Again, I see parallels here - those without privilege do not necessarily share the concerns of those with privilege over maintaining the existing order. Why should they?



Is it because of behaviour passed down over generations in the troop, perhaps? Or modifications of behaviour that have been absorbed into the group?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Is it because of behaviour passed down over generations in the troop, perhaps? Or modifications of behaviour that have been absorbed into the group?


Vervet monkeys are great status-strivers. They can rise and fall in the hierarchy, and they will form alliances and schemes. Best explanation, imo, is the one you'd apply to humans - they are calculating their own self-interests and acting accordingly. 

To try to make this relevant, here, we have: 

'You've fucked the economy, you fool. Can't you see that it's bad for business?' 

'That would be the business that hasn't given me a pay rise in six years, that business, your business, the one that's made you rich? 
You're fucked? Good.'


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Vervet monkeys are great status-strivers. They can rise and fall in the hierarchy, and they will form alliances and schemes. Best explanation, imo, is the one you'd apply to humans - they are calculating their own self-interests and acting accordingly.
> 
> To try to make this relevant, here, we have:
> 
> ...



Thanks for explaining that so clearly. It's difficult sometimes to understand but that one rings true.


----------



## Libertad (Jan 6, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> You are a very nice person



So astute, I thank you kindly.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> >50% of male lions die as a result of violence with other male lions. I would see a troop of baboons as more analogous to human society - baboon society is very hierarchical, and while male lions must defeat other males to become a pack leader, the infant of a high-ranking baboon mother is itself also high-ranking without having to do anything. Surely that's more analogous to human society and the privilege we're talking about on this thread.
> 
> In studies of similarly hierarchical vervet monkeys, it is observed that low-ranking individuals tend to be much more friendly towards individuals from rival troops, and also much less interested in defending territory, than their high-ranking 'betters'. Again, I see parallels here - those without privilege do not necessarily share the concerns of those with privilege over maintaining the existing order. Why should they?



Isn't the obvious problem with all your analogies from other animal species that they tend to essentialise human social relations? One of the most remarkable properties of human social life has to be its malleability.  No other species can begin to reflect the range of different forms. We can't begin to generalise about political organisation of ancient Sparta and a Swiss mountain valley, or familial relations between the Saudi Arabian royal family and within the kinship networks on a Pacific Atoll, or economic life in a rural peasant commune and a modern capitalist state.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2017)

eoin_k said:


> Isn't the obvious problem with all your analogies from other animal species that they tend to essentialise human social relations? One of the most remarkable properties of human social life has to be its malleability.  No other species can begin to reflect the range of different forms. We can't begin to generalise about political organisation of ancient Sparta and a Swiss mountain valley, or familial relations between the Saudi Arabian royal family and within the kinship networks on a Pacific Atoll, or economic life in a rural peasant commune and a modern capitalist state.


The analogies certainly have their limits. For me at least, it can be useful to look at simpler systems in order to identify some underlying principles that are also at work in more complex systems. However, this time, I promise I really will leave this alone. A subject for another thread.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The analogies certainly have their limits. For me at least, it can be useful to look at simpler systems in order to identify some underlying principles that are also at work in more complex systems. However, this time, I promise I really will leave this alone. A subject for another thread.



Would be great if somebody started a new thread on this spin off topic on humans, animals and the basis/nature of moral activity in the philosophy forum. Don't have too much time to participate in it just at the minute, but I will follow with great interest.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Until very recently, asking questions about animal minds could lose you your scientific career.



What do you mean by 'very recently'? When I studied Psychology way back in the Seventies, there was a branch  called Comparative Psychology ....

Comparative psychology - Wikipedia

which was doing exactly that. Perhaps there was a difference between North America and Europe.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, we were going in circles.
> 
> Problem is your 'for sure'. It's not really what science deals with.



I'd agree with that.


That's why I questioned you when you made this statement



> littlebabyjesus said: ↑
> He's nearly there except that he's wrong about wolves. Wolves punish transgressors.* They have morals, too.*



as if it were a fact, a certainty.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I had determined not to respond to jc3 any more.


Because I was disagreeing with you?

It seemed an interesting discussion to me, and one that seemed to be without the usual rancour so often evident here.

I'm sorry if this discussion has somehow offended you.


----------



## General Veers (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> People who voted for trump and brexit are thick, uneducated, or deluded it doesnt matter if they agree with me or not.
> 
> As they are voting against their own best interests.


On the matter of voting to leave the EU I would disagree with you opinion.  That's all it is, your opinion.  Does that make me thick, uneducated, racist or all three?


----------



## General Veers (Jan 6, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Are you aware of your politics?


He or she is aware of their lofty contempt for their fellow citizens which is the subject of this thread really.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

General Veers said:


> On the matter of voting to leave the EU I would disagree with you opinion.  That's all it is, your opinion.  Does that make me thick, uneducated, racist or all three?



You can disagree with my opinion and not be any of them. But if you voted for Brexit I would put you in one of the three categories.  Observing the posts in the politics forum - many seem happy to discuss political semantics and it a bit dull - but they are welcome to do so, many would think the same about non-league football.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2017)

Back on topic, then.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> But if you voted for Brexit I would put you in one of the three categories.


Why do you hate the Greeks so much?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Why do you hate the Greeks so much?



The Greeks voted to stay in the EU. So anyone annoyed about the EU because of Greece has an issue with democracy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> The Greeks voted to stay in the EU. So anyone annoyed about the EU because of Greece has an issue with democracy.


So, it's fine for the EU to punish Greece for giving a Christmas bonus to pensioners (which the Greeks also voted for)? We _have to _vote in favour of that or we're thick, uneducated or racist.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> The Greeks voted to stay in the EU. So anyone annoyed about the EU because of Greece has an issue with democracy.


When did they do that then?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> The Greeks voted to stay in the EU. So anyone annoyed about the EU because of Greece has an issue with democracy.



And we voted to leave the EU....


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> When did they do that then?



They had a vote on the bailout.  Refusing it would have seen them inevitably leave.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> And we voted to leave the EU....



Am I not accepting the result? No. Just scathing of those who voted with Farage.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> They had a vote on the bailout.  Refusing it would have seen them inevitably leave.



They _did _refuse it.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> So, it's fine for the EU to punish Greece for giving a Christmas bonus to pensioners (which the Greeks also voted for)? We _have to _vote in favour of that or we're thick, uneducated or racist.



Britain staying in the EU has nothing to do with them punishing Greece. So am starting to think you might be thick or deluded.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> They _did _refuse it.



Ha! True


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> They had a vote on the bailout.  Refusing it would have seen them inevitably leave.


I think you need to check what the vote was and what the result was before proceeding any further.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I think you need to check what the vote was and what the result was before proceeding any further.



Already checked - I'm not ashamed to say when I was wrong - teaches me a lesson to not focus.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Already checked - I'm not ashamed to say when I was wrong - teaches me a lesson to not focus.


So now, armed with this new information, have another go at your reply to danny.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Already checked - I'm not ashamed to say when I was wrong - teaches me a lesson to not focus.



So given that you are pro-EU, and the EU are clearly disdainful of the Greek peoples' will, does this mean you have a problem with democracy? Why do you hate the Greeks BIG, why?


----------



## mather (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> The Greeks voted to stay in the EU. So anyone annoyed about the EU because of Greece has an issue with democracy.



It's amazing that you have the gall to call Leave voters thick when you post shit like this, you thick cunt.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> So now, armed with this new information, have another go at your reply to danny.



Already did - us leaving the EU has no impact on what they do to the Greeks.  Its deluded to think it does. The Greeks are responsible for themselves. They could leave as we have done.  No one has stopped us.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

mather said:


> It's amazing that you have the gall to call Leave voters thick when you post shit like this, you thick cunt.



Not remembering something correctly doesn't make you thick as far as I know, but I won't be bothered if you think I am.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Britain staying in the EU has nothing to do with them punishing Greece. So am starting to think you might be thick or deluded.


continuing membership of a supra national state that has beggared greece- vindictivelly so? even if you lack the 'injury to one' feelings you can take a 'pragmatic' look and think 'thats how far they'll go'.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Not remembering something correctly doesn't make you thick as far as I know, but I won't be bothered if you think I am.



I certainly won't be holding down a massive feud like many on these boards.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Already did - us leaving the EU has no impact on what they do to the Greeks.  Its deluded to think it does. The Greeks are responsible for themselves. *They could leave as we have done. * No one has stopped us.


Alas, this bit really isn't true.


----------



## General Veers (Jan 6, 2017)

As opposed to those who voted with Cameron?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> continuing membership of a supra national state that has beggared greece- vindictivelly so? even if you lack the 'injury to one' feelings you can take a 'pragmatic' look and think 'thats how far they'll go'.



They are so desperate to keep Greece but they will let us go without anything?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Alas, this bit really isn't true.



Its very true. Many countries declare bankruptcy. Back on the money markets asap.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

General Veers said:


> As opposed to those who voted with Cameron?



Cameron is preferable to Farage, if only if hiding your true nature means you are aware that what you think is wrong.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Its very true. Many countries declare bankruptcy. Back on the money markets asap.


No, and even your post here tacitly acknowledges it. 'As we have done' really isn't an option. atm the EU has Greece by the knackers. 

You are right that they need to default on their debt, and as soon as possible. On that at least, we can agree.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Already did - us leaving the EU has no impact on what they do to the Greeks.  Its deluded to think it does. The Greeks are responsible for themselves. They could leave as we have done.  No one has stopped us.


I really have no idea what you're trying to say most of the time. Where did you go back and put right the conclusions you based on erroneous information? If your conclusions (or what you think are conclusions rather than the reality of vague unsupported assertions and question begging) stand no matter what information you based them on -  incorrect, correct, whatever - then they're not really up to much. In fact, you only serve to undermine them and the process by which you reached them. It's not something that really demands to be taken seriously is it?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I really have no idea what you're trying to say most of the time. Where did you go back and put right the conclusions you based on erroneous information? If your conclusions (or what you think are conclusions rather than the reality of vague unsupported assertions and question begging) stand no matter what information you based them on -  incorrect, correct, whatever - then they're not really up to much. In fact, you only serve to undermine them and the process by which you reached them. It's not something that really demands to be taken seriously is it?



If you don't want to take me seriously that is up to you. I take you seriously as I do everyone else on here, no matter what I think of their opinions, as it tells you something about them. Even racist opinions when expressed should be taken with the seriousness they deserve as they allow you to hold contempt for that person. Same with stupid opinions.

Those that do not take the opinions of others seriously are generally quite arrogant.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, and even your post here tacitly acknowledges it. 'As we have done' really isn't an option. atm the EU has Greece by the knackers.
> 
> You are right that they need to default on their debt, and as soon as possible. On that at least, we can agree.



We do agree. If it was best for Greece outside Europe, which it may or may not be.  Then it would be best for them to default on their debt.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> us leaving the EU has no impact on what they do to the Greeks



What they do to the Greeks has an impact on what they may do to others at any time though. That's the point. The Greek experience puts lie to the claim that the EU is interested in protecting worker rights. This was one of the main reasons we kept being given for why we should vote remain. Is it really such a surprise that left-brexiters did not for a second take that reason seriously?


----------



## mather (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Not remembering something correctly doesn't make you thick as far as I know, but I won't be bothered if you think I am.



Somehow I highly doubt you actually forgot anything, you just didn't know that the Greeks never got to vote on EU membership and you couldn't be arsed to check it up. You did the very thing that you accuse Leave voters of doing.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> What they do to the Greeks has an impact on what they may do to others at any time though. That's the point. The Greek experience puts lie to the claim that the EU is interested in protecting worker rights. This was one of the main reasons we kept being given for why we should vote remain. Is it really such a surprise that left-brexiters did not for a second take that reason seriously?



If people on the left wanting to leave the EU because they wanted nothing to do with the EU on moral grounds then they are not deluded, stupid, or racist.  Provided they don't think things will be better outside.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If you don't want to take me seriously that is up to you. I take you seriously as I do everyone else on here, no matter what I think of their opinions, as it tells you something about them. Even racist opinions when expressed should be taken with the seriousness they deserve as they allow you to hold contempt for that person. Same with stupid opinions.
> 
> Those that do not take the opinions of others seriously are generally quite arrogant.


Your whole intervention here is based on not taking the views of people who disagree with you seriously.

And no, i certainly will not take such a process of reaching political conclusions - one which it doesn't make any difference whether the facts the claimed conclusions are based on are true or not - seriously. The real arrogance is in offering such an approach as serious.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

mather said:


> Somehow I highly doubt you actually forgot anything, you just didn't know that the Greeks never got to vote on EU membership and you couldn't be arsed to check it up. You did the very thing that you accuse Leave voters of doing.



It was reported at the time but you doubt what you like.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Your whole intervention here is based on not taking the views of people who disagree with you seriously.
> 
> And no, i certainly will not take such a process of reaching political conclusions - one which it doesn't make any difference whether the facts the claimed conclusions are based on are true or not - seriously. The real arrogance is in offering such an approach as serious.



I take their views seriously, I just hold them in contempt. Ignore what I think if you like.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I take their views seriously, I just hold them in contempt. Ignore what I think if you like.


it's hard to tell just what you think in all honesty. I don't see you taking anything seriously in your sloppy unargued assertions - most certainly not the views of people who disagree with you. If you did you wouldn't end up with such insulting almost apolitical generalisations. That, literally, is all you have offered here.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If people on the left wanting to leave the EU because they wanted nothing to do with the EU on moral grounds then they are not deluded, stupid, or racist.  Provided they don't think things will be better outside.



The choice was between two shitty options, but I have every reason to think that remaining in the EU would be the worst one. Either the EU becomes a federal state with more centralised powers than it has now, or it collapses in a chaotic and unplanned manner. That is the future of the EU. Given that I do not want to be part of a federal state, I figure it is best to get out while we can so that we are somewhat shielded from the possible chaos.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> The Greeks are responsible for themselves. .


What does this even mean? 

I don't even support brexit, but you're down a very stupid rabbit hole with this stuff now. I think there are reasons why the financial waterboarding of the Greek people is not reason of itself why the UK should leave the EU, but you haven't given any. This is as close as damn it to saying 'bollocks to Greece, not our problem'.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The choice was between two shitty options, but I have every reason to think that remaining in the EU would be the worst one. Either the EU becomes a federal state with more centralised powers than it has now, or it collapses in a chaotic and unplanned manner. That is the future of the EU. Given that I do not want to be part of a federal state, I figure it is best to get out while we can so that we are somewhat shielded from the possible chaos.



Fair enough. I don't know what you have against a Federal State or how it differs from the UK with four governments. Or why it will collapse while the UK will stay strong. But I understand your point of view.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What does this even mean?
> 
> I don't even support brexit, but you're down a very stupid rabbit hole with this stuff now. I think there are reasons why the financial waterboarding of the Greek people is not reason of itself why the UK should leave the EU, but you haven't given any. This is as close as damn it to saying 'bollocks to Greece, not our problem'.



It means the Greeks can leave the EU if they want same as France or any other country or they can stay. Its their decision.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> it's hard to tell just what you think in all honesty. I don't see you taking anything seriously in your sloppy unargued assertions - most certainly not the views of people who disagree with you. If you did you wouldn't end up with such insulting almost apolitical generalisations. That, literally, is all you have offered here.



If can't tell what I think when I say it directly and answer any question I'm asked then I am very sorry.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> It means the Greeks can leave the EU if they want same as France or any other country or they can stay. Its their decision.


That's incredibly naive. Very little any Greek government does atm is 'their decision'. That's kind of the whole point.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's incredibly naive. Very little any Greek government does atm is 'their decision'. That's kind of the whole point.



Then we disagree.  The Greek government could serve Article 50. They could refuse to repay the creditors and be bankrupted.  They choose not to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Then we disagree.  The Greek government could serve Article 50. They could refuse to repay the creditors and be bankrupted.  They choose not to.


Ah, easy peasy then. What happens next? Unlike the UK, Greece has living memory of civil war (active, shitty fucking British involvement, btw) and military dictatorship. As I said, incredibly naive.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2017)

bankruptancy doesn't exist for nation states. They'd get fucked like argentina. Anytime the greek gov step out of line the ECB turns off the tap and threatens to leave greece looking at runs on banks and the likely prospect of more open rioting.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2017)

I have my foot on your throat. And a knife at your partners throat. You're free to act as you choose.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> bankruptancy doesn't exist for nation states. They'd get fucked like argentina. Anytime the greek gov step out of line the ECB turns off the tap and threatens to leave greece looking at runs on banks and the likely prospect of more open rioting.



They can default on their debt and print the Drachma again. Depending on how quickly they can borrow again they might be fine.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I have my foot on your throat. And a knife at your partners throat. You're free to act as you choose.



Don't worry about my partner obv.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Fair enough. I don't know what you have against a Federal State or how it differs from the UK with four governments. Or why it will collapse while the UK will stay strong. But I understand your point of view.



The reason the EU is up for collapse if it does not federalise is because it does not have the power to resolve its economic crises. There are 3 ways in which governments typically ameliorate the effects of economic downturns - adjusting interest rates, direct spending into the economy so as to inject demand, and devaluing the currency so as to encourage exports. The way the EU is set up, none of these are possible for EU countries who find themselves in trouble.

Currency devaluation is not possible because member states do not have their own currency, the ECB cannot adjust interest rates to benefit one region without simultaneously having negative effects elsewhere, and member states are bound by the fiscal compact to not engage in government stimulus. The result of all this is that EU states such as Greece are destined to remain in perpetual depression.

The above situation will not hold. It will lead to the EU tearing itself apart unless something seriously changes in the organisation of the EU. That reorganisation would have to involve the centralisation of power. Why am I against such centralisation? Because I think the EU is unaccountable as it stands. Making it more unaccountable can do nothing but harm.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The reason the EU is up for collapse if it does not federalise is because it does not have the power to resolve its economic crises. There are 3 ways in which governments typically ameliorate the effects of economic downturns - adjusting interest rates, direct spending into the economy so as to inject demand, and devaluing the currency so as to encourage exports. The way the EU is set up, none of these are possible for EU countries who find themselves in trouble.
> 
> Currency devaluation is not possible because member states do not have their own currency, the ECB cannot adjust interest rates to benefit one region without simultaneously having negative effects elsewhere, and member states are bound by the fiscal compact to not engage in government stimulus. The result of all this is that EU states such as Greece are destined to remain in perpetual depression.
> 
> The above situation will not hold. It will lead to the EU tearing itself apart unless something seriously changes in the organisation of the EU. That reorganisation would have to involve the centralisation of power. Why am I against such centralisation? Because I think the EU is unaccountable as it stands. Making it more unaccountable can do nothing but harm.



An accurate summary, I would disagree slightly about the accountability vs accountability of the member states. But I wouldn't have stood away for something to try and make it change.

I have to go now - so back on topic. Apologies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The reason the EU is up for collapse if it does not federalise is because it does not have the power to resolve its economic crises. There are 3 ways in which governments typically ameliorate the effects of economic downturns - adjusting interest rates, direct spending into the economy so as to inject demand, and devaluing the currency so as to encourage exports. The way the EU is set up, none of these are possible for EU countries who find themselves in trouble.
> 
> Currency devaluation is not possible because member states do not have their own currency, the ECB cannot adjust interest rates to benefit one region without simultaneously having negative effects elsewhere, and member states are bound by the fiscal compact to not engage in government stimulus. The result of all this is that EU states such as Greece are destined to remain in perpetual depression.
> 
> The above situation will not hold. It will lead to the EU tearing itself apart unless something seriously changes in the organisation of the EU. That reorganisation would have to involve the centralisation of power. Why am I against such centralisation? Because I think the EU is unaccountable as it stands. Making it more unaccountable can do nothing but harm.


Ah good, an interesting post. 

Not disagreeing with the thrust of your analysis, but why would the reorganisation have to involve centralisation of power? I presume that, by that, you mean that monetary union needs the addition of fiscal union, so a single central power setting not just interest rates but also tax rates. A proper federalised state. 

Could it not be argued that this is, in effect, what we already have, just without even the pretence of a democratic structure to govern it, hence the strong ruling over the weak? 

It's an interesting point, given that my position over brexit was basically 'stay in but it needs radical change'.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah good, an interesting post.
> 
> Not disagreeing with the thrust of your analysis, but why would the reorganisation have to involve centralisation of power? I presume that, by that, you mean that monetary union needs the addition of fiscal union, so a single central power setting not just interest rates but also tax rates. A proper federalised state.
> 
> ...



I think the centralisation would come about naturally once you add in the fiscal union. Can you imagine the scenario whereby taxes collected in the UK would be used for economic stimulus is Greece? The right would be up in arms. Personally I wouldn't mind a jot if that happened, but politically it would not be sustainable

My guess is that at that point the EU would find itself at another juncture - either it reduces national parliaments to the equivalent of US state legislatures and introduces presidential elections, or it finds a constant thorn in its side from disgruntled nationalist-inclined domestic political parties. This is presuming reform is possible in the first place.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If people on the left wanting to leave the EU because they wanted nothing to do with the EU on moral grounds then they are not deluded, stupid, or racist.  Provided they don't think things will be better outside.



Oh, so you've completely conceded that the only point you were making - that a vote for Brexit makes someone deluded, racist or stupid - was wrong?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 6, 2017)

.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2017)

Perhaps a better question would be:

What the fuck does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Or even, why don't you start another thread to discuss this (admittedly interesting) subject?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2017)

Athos said:


> Perhaps a better question would be:
> 
> What the fuck does this have to do with the topic of this thread?
> 
> Or even, why don't you start another thread to discuss this (admittedly interesting) subject?



I'm quite enjoying the debate myself.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I'm quite enjoying the debate myself.



Would you enjoy it any less if it were in a thread of its own, so as not to distract and detract from this one?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2017)

Athos said:


> Would you enjoy it any less if it were in a thread of its own, so as not to distract and detract from this one?



Not at all, your highness. This seems a perfect thread of choice, as it goes.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

Athos said:


> Oh, so you've completely conceded that the only point you were making - that a vote for Brexit makes someone deluded, racist or stupid - was wrong?



The odd exception. Sorry I cant wrap millions up without one or two escaping.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> The odd exception. Sorry I cant wrap millions up without one or two escaping.


This is what it comes down to: you, and other liberals like you, thinking that you can "wrap up millions". Thinking you've got them all figured out. One or two that don't fit the rule. But otherwise you can dismiss the lot. You understand them perfectly.

But what if you're wrong? And how do you think it sounds to the millions?


----------



## cjay (Jan 6, 2017)

I have larger question about how the British left got away from anti-globalization or were they ever against it to begin with?  

Back in the 90's, anti-globalization was a big issue for the left here in the US.  There were big protests.  At the time, the right here was pro-globalization, with the exception of the far right who were totally marginalized.  Anti-globalization arguments were coming mostly from the left and had not been stigmatized like they are now.  Bill Clinton ran on opposition to the NAFTA trade treaty in 1992, but then reversed his position a few years later.

Fast forward 20 years later, and the left is de facto in an alliance with neoliberal corporate globalists against a populist/nationalist trending right.  I'm afraid that the younger generation of leadership on the left here is moving towards a totally identity politics focused vision that doesn't even pretend to oppose neoliberal economics.  Hilary Clinton's comments about "breaking up the big banks won't end racism" were shocking and a reflection of how the center left now thinks.

What I'm seeing is that attitude is moving further on the left, especially among the younger crowd.  It's clear we are moving towards a situation where criticizing big banks and neoliberal economics will be seen was some kind of dirty, possibly racist sentiment.  Those who criticize neoliberal economics will be accused of being far right shills trying to take attention off the the real issues.  That's essentially what happened with anti-globalization.  That was a mainstream cause in the 90's and now if you say "globalism" around lefties, people will think you're some kind of closet racist.  The neoliberals have managed to stigmatize opposition to them them.

How did this happen?


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 6, 2017)

Perhaps if you call it _globalisation_ rather than _globalism_ people might be less likely to take you for a David Duke supporter.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 6, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> One of the issues is, whilst few would disagree with you about the starting point we are having this discussion in context.


Well first of all I don't agree with this comment, I think lots of people would disagree strongly with the starting point I proposed. Two days ago you had someone on this thread calling 50+% of the population of the UK idiots and millions of people racists, nonsense which the poster has repeated in the last 12 hours. And while B.I.G.'s post may be more blunt than some he's not alone, I hear such views more and more both on U75 and in general.

But regarding "solutions", well solutions to what end? Not only are the starting points for progressive neoliberalism antithetical to mine their desired ends points are too. And that's why I'm so critical of those who have signed up to progressive neoliberalism or argue "that we're all on the same side". We never were, and while the cracks may have been able to be papered over they are becoming ever more apparent. First do no harm.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> This is what it comes down to: you, and other liberals like you, thinking that you can "wrap up millions". Thinking you've got them all figured out. One or two that don't fit the rule. But otherwise you can dismiss the lot. You understand them perfectly.
> 
> But what if you're wrong? And how do you think it sounds to the millions?



I knew it wouldnt be long before someone on urban dismissed me as a "liberal". Classic urban.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I knew it wouldnt be long before someone on urban dismissed me as a "liberal". Classic urban.


You and littlebabyjesus


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I knew it wouldnt be long before someone on urban dismissed me as a "liberal". Classic urban.


So, millions of people are thick, uneducated and racist, but "liberal" is "dismissing" you?  Maybe "thick and uneducated" is a bit dismissive?

As it happens, I was referring to the liberal establishment. People like you, but not just you. People who have been _dismissing_ millions as thick, uneducated and racist. Columnists, TV personalities, certain politicians, members of civil society. People who are happy to assume and to write off. To "wrap up" millions.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 6, 2017)

cjay said:


> I have larger question about how the British left got away from anti-globalization or were they ever against it to begin with?
> 
> Back in the 90's, anti-globalization was a big issue for the left here in the US.  There were big protests.  At the time, the right here was pro-globalization, with the exception of the far right who were totally marginalized.  Anti-globalization arguments were coming mostly from the left and had not been stigmatized like they are now.  Bill Clinton ran on opposition to the NAFTA trade treaty in 1992, but then reversed his position a few years later.
> 
> ...



Some of this is quite confused and muddled, the Clintons were certainly never of the left or a part of the activist anti-globalisation left. The very superficial Bill Clinton (and then Hillary Clinton) opposition to NAFTA (and then the TPP) was not part of a broader opposition to globalisation. I do think that you have identified the same thing as I have though, that there has been a deliberate political entanglement of social liberalism with neoliberal economics, and that is being pushed very hard at the moment by both centre-right and centre-left. Nick Clegg's schtick at the moment is basically a wordy conflation of 'anti-banker' sentiment with xenophobia, it is risible. He and others like him are knowingly scoring a few points off the left while signposting people who are dissatisfied with neoliberalism towards the populist right.

All this being said, when you use the term 'globalism' I think that does set off alarm bells for people on the left, and not because they are supportive of globalisation. As far as I can tell Globalism and _globalists_ are terms used mostly by the right, more often than not in ways that seem to be referring to a Jewish conspiracy rather than anything structural. So take Trump's final campaign video in which when he refers to _globalists_ three pictures flash up of Yellen, Soros and Blankfein. This is the context that I expect to see the term 'globalist' in. Perhaps that is the problem you are running into.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 7, 2017)

Interesting how these peak around the election

Google Trends


----------



## cjay (Jan 7, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Some of this is quite confused and muddled, the Clintons were certainly never of the left or a part of the activist anti-globalisation left. The very superficial Bill Clinton (and then Hillary Clinton) opposition to NAFTA (and then the TPP) was not part of a broader opposition to globalisation. I do think that you have identified the same thing as I have though, that there has been a deliberate political entanglement of social liberalism with neoliberal economics, and that is being pushed very hard at the moment by both centre-right and centre-left. Nick Clegg's schtick at the moment is basically a wordy conflation of 'anti-banker' sentiment with xenophobia, it is risible. He and others like him are knowingly scoring a few points off the left while signposting people who are dissatisfied with neoliberalism towards the populist right.
> 
> All this being said, when you use the term 'globalism' I think that does set off alarm bells for people on the left, and not because they are supportive of globalisation. As far as I can tell Globalism and _globalists_ are terms used mostly by the right, more often than not in ways that seem to be referring to a Jewish conspiracy rather than anything structural. So take Trump's final campaign video in which when he refers to _globalists_ three pictures flash up of Yellen, Soros and Blankfein. This is the context that I expect to see the term 'globalist' in. Perhaps that is the problem you are running into.



You are making my point for me.  It was not like this in the US two decades ago.  "Anti-globalization" was a mainstream left cause for socialists, communist, anarchists and especially anti-fascists.  That was the word for it.  It's not a right wing word.  Who do you think fucked shit up in Seattle at the WTO meeting?  The Klu Klux Klan?  It was anarchists, anti-racist punks and skinheads and environmentalist hippies.  Literally it was the same people were engaging in anti-fascist direct actions around the same time that smashed up corporate property to protest, in their won words, "globalization."  Not even "neoliberalism," just straight up globalization.  And you better believe that the people pushing globalization were called, yes, "globalists."  

If Bill Clinton, New Democrat poster boy, was against NAFTA in 1992, what do you think socialists thought about it?  Globalization was the economic and foreign policy program of Reagan and Bush.  Opposing it wasn't something that was controversial the left.  Now you get accused of being a David Duke supporter.  

I'm not even completely sure David Duke was against NAFTA at the time.  He was certainly trying to pander to Reagan's ideological conservative base in the GOP that were very pro-globalization.  Support for total free trade along with eliminating unions and the entire social welfare state was very widespread among far right crazies in that era.  Extreme libertarian economic policies that include total free trade were and are popular among white nationalists, neo-nazis, "patriots," sovereign citizens, armed militias and people like that.  They see any impediment to total free trade, even safety and health regulation of imported goods as a tax(aka theft) and not much different than communism.  I know that sounds beyond ridiculous to y'all, but a wide spectrum of right wing Americans thinks like that.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 7, 2017)

cjay said:


> You are making my point for me.  It was not like this in the US two decades ago.  "Anti-globalization" was a mainstream left cause for socialists, communist, anarchists and especially anti-fascists.  That was the word for it.  It's not a right wing word.  Who do you think fucked shit up in Seattle at the WTO meeting?  The Klu Klux Klan?  It was anarchists, anti-racist punks and skinheads and environmentalist hippies.  Literally it was the same people were engaging in anti-fascist direct actions around the same time that smashed up corporate property to protest, in their won words, "globalization."  Not even "neoliberalism," just straight up globalization.  And you better believe that the people pushing globalization were called, yes, "globalists."
> 
> If Bill Clinton, New Democrat poster boy, was against NAFTA in 1992, what do you think socialists thought about it?  Globalization was the economic and foreign policy program of Reagan and Bush.  Opposing it wasn't something that was controversial the left.  Now you get accused of being a David Duke supporter.
> 
> I'm not even completely sure David Duke was against NAFTA at the time.  He was certainly trying to pander to Reagan's ideological conservative base in the GOP that were very pro-globalization.  Support for total free trade along with eliminating unions and the entire social welfare state was very widespread among far right crazies in that era.  Extreme libertarian economic policies that include total free trade were and are popular among white nationalists, neo-nazis, "patriots," sovereign citizens, armed militias and people like that.  They see any impediment to total free trade, even safety and health regulation of imported goods as a tax(aka theft) and not much different than communism.  I know that sounds beyond ridiculous to y'all, but a wide spectrum of right wing Americans thinks like that.



Both me and Bill Clinton attended the G8 (iirc?) thing in Birmingham in 1998. He was flown in by helicopter for the conference, I was at the Reclaim the Streets demo and walked there and back from my home (you must know this board has lots of posters who were heavily or loosely involved with the anti-gloablisation stuff in the uk, and the anti-roads movement it was born from, right?). Clinton was never part of the left as far as I was concerned, nor do I think many/any on the demo would have considered him to be so. Globalism/globalisation may be a US/UK thing, It's a long time ago but I don't remember referring to it as globalism, always globalisation. I guess we must have called the people globalists but tbh I can't remember but I can't think of any other term. Nonetheless I agree with J_ed eoin_k that globalism/globalist is more readily associated in my mind with the far-right. They are not accusing you of being far right, just suggesting that you might get a poor reception because of the image those words trigger rather than anything else.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2017)

The Europeans at the time often used alter-globalisation to describe their proposed solutions to globalisation. It was pro increasing globalisation, anti neoliberal forms of it.

edIt: and one of the reasons for this attempted differentiation was that euro-far right groups of the french new-right, third position, national anarchist types were trying to infiltrate the movements, believing that simple anti-globalisatin rhetoric that some used meant that their day had finally come, that the left now agreed with them and their regionalist, culturalist identarian agenda. If you go back and look at the ainfos posts from that time or the yahoo organising lists or similar you'l see that this was a real issue.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 7, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I knew it wouldnt be long before someone on urban dismissed me as a "liberal". Classic urban.


Calling you a liberal is an insult to liberals.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 7, 2017)

cjay said:


> You are making my point for me.  It was not like this in the US two decades ago.  "Anti-globalization" was a mainstream left cause for socialists, communist, anarchists and especially anti-fascists.  That was the word for it.  It's not a right wing word.  Who do you think fucked shit up in Seattle at the WTO meeting?  The Klu Klux Klan?  It was anarchists, anti-racist punks and skinheads and environmentalist hippies.  Literally it was the same people were engaging in anti-fascist direct actions around the same time that smashed up corporate property to protest, in their won words, "globalization."  Not even "neoliberalism," just straight up globalization.  And you better believe that the people pushing globalization were called, yes, "globalists."



I don't really see how this has changed significantly, liberals then were actually in favour of even the things they specifically said they opposed while the actual left still wasn't. It's the same now, Clinton claimed to be against TPP but everyone knew she wasn't, while supporters of Sanders and everyone to their left are very much against the TPP and other similar trade agreements.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 7, 2017)

We've had the "what does liberal mean" discussion lots of times, including several pages here: Are you a Marxist


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 7, 2017)

(That was for B.I.G ^ )


----------



## cjay (Jan 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Both me and Bill Clinton attended the G8 (iirc?) thing in Birmingham in 1998. He was flown in by helicopter for the conference, I was at the Reclaim the Streets demo and walked there and back from my home (you must know this board has lots of posters who were heavily or loosely involved with the anti-gloablisation stuff in the uk, and the anti-roads movement it was born from, right?). Clinton was never part of the left as far as I was concerned, nor do I think many/any on the demo would have considered him to be so. Globalism/globalisation may be a US/UK thing, It's a long time ago but I don't remember referring to it as globalism, always globalisation. I guess we must have called the people globalists but tbh I can't remember but I can't think of any other term. Nonetheless I agree with J_ed eoin_k that globalism/globalist is more readily associated in my mind with the far-right. They are not accusing you of being far right, just suggesting that you might get a poor reception because of the image those words trigger rather than anything else.



And that's why the far right is surging now.  They stole populist economics from us.  When I was first involved in politics, the racist far right in the US were almost all Ayn Rand fanatics who would fly into a rage at the mention of "the working class."  The kind of populist rhetoric behind Trump didn't exist with those people back then.  They would have accused anyone talking about workers' interests or greedy corporations of being a communist.

There has been an incredible inversion between the right and left on economic issues in my lifetime.  I thought people here might want to discuss this, but I was wrong.  The Pavlovian response against the words I used tells me that this inversion process and the psychological taboos against challenging the ruling class are deeper than I realized.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 7, 2017)

cjay said:


> And that's why the far right is surging now.  They stole populist economics from us.  When I was first involved in politics, the racist far right in the US were almost all Ayn Rand fanatics who would fly into a rage at the mention of "the working class."  The kind of populist rhetoric behind Trump didn't exist with those people back then.  They would have accused anyone talking about workers' interests or greedy corporations of being a communist.
> 
> There has been an incredible inversion between the right and left on economic issues in my lifetime.  I thought people here might want to discuss this, but I was wrong.  The Pavlovian response against the words I used tells me that this inversion process and the psychological taboos against challenging the ruling class are deeper than I realized.



UKIP has moved like that but I think the far right in the UK has generally identified as working class and had these politics throughout my lifetime, so that is a difference between US and UK (although always about white working class obv). I think you are reading way to much into what is purely a language difference, and people trying to explain this difference, as you seemed to be unaware why some people in the uk might react with suspicion towards someone using those particular words. That doesn't in any way means that they are no longer anti-globalisation, or against the institutions such as EU, WTO, NAFTA, TPIP (I can't remember the acronym atm) etc. Obviously the anti-globalisation movement disappeared sometime around the mid-00s I think in the UK? Fed into/created Climate Camp I think and from there to Occupy possibly? I dunno what happened to the various movements in the US or Europe (except to the extent it was all interlinked). Many of on the left in the UK will have voted to leave the EU, or abstained from the vote, because they are anti-globalisation, and see the EU as one of the fundamental globalising forces. Neo-liberalism (or capitalism) is also an inseparable part of this, as a globalisation based on solidarity (or full communism) would be internationalism which would probably be welcomed (definitely welcomed). That's made me wonder if we called the people neo-liberals back then, I'm really not sure.

In terms of the movement of "the left", yes that's the same here - social democracy has been dropped for neo-liberalism and the nominally left party/parties have moved from social democratic positions to neo-liberal positions, but there are still social democrats in what is left of the labour movement and there are still revolutionary socialists. No doubt both have declined since the 90s but then the anti-cuts demo in 2011 pulled out half a million which was iirc the 3rd biggest demo in UK history, with a big direct action element as part of it, so it's not like it's completely gone and there's no opposition to austerity/neo-liberalism. Corbyn is the equivalent to Sanders (and Syriza, Podemos? not sure what else), but generally the labour and middle class left are fucking shit at any kind of economics/politics which will work to counter the rise of the populist right. Our two main communities have been largely destroyed - large workplaces are few and far between, which has undercut trade unions and the degregadation of social housing/secure contracts has made our local/physical communities more transient. The housing crisis has reached such a point in the UK that the moderate left are actually starting to address it. That may signal the start of a movement away from neo-liberal politics, or they may just destroy corbyn and continue along their path towards full working class traitorism (some would say the labour party did that a long time ago tbf).


----------



## treelover (Jan 8, 2017)

> No doubt both have declined since the 90s but then the anti-cuts demo in 2011 pulled out half a million which was iirc the 3rd biggest demo in UK history, with a big direct action element as part of it



Which while probably exciting for the largely middle class participants, (saw many of them disrobe from their riot outfits in trafalgar square), it probably severely blunted the message the mass rally was trying to engender.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 8, 2017)

treelover said:


> Which while probably exciting for the largely middle class participants, (saw many of them disrobe from their riot outfits in trafalgar square), it probably severely blunted the message the mass rally was trying to engender.



Whatever other criticisms there might be of ukuncut, they certainly had a popular / populist message, that resonated with many, many people. Imo the inaction of unions following the demo plus the mass arrest of ukuncut activists meant this was the high point of the movement rather than the springboard for wider action.

e2a: Trafalgar square stuff isn't what I was thinking of, as I was thinking of ukuncut action. I was arrested at f&m and never made it that late, as were many other ukuncut activists.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 11, 2017)

Mike Davis (City of Quartz, Late Victorian Holocausts) piece on consequences of Trump's victory. Might have been posted on one of the Trump thread but I couldn't be bothered wading through crap to make sure. 

(Am I going mad or didn't we use to have an 'Interesting Articles' Thread? I searched but couldn't seem to ind it)


----------



## yield (Mar 11, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Mike Davis (City of Quartz, Late Victorian Holocausts) piece on consequences of Trump's victory. Might have been posted on one of the Trump thread but I couldn't be bothered wading through crap to make sure.
> 
> (Am I going mad or didn't we use to have an 'Interesting Articles' Thread? I searched but couldn't seem to ind it)


Would it be worth having an 'I just read an interesting article' thread?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 11, 2017)

yield said:


> Would it be worth having an 'I just read an interesting article' thread?


Ah, Ta. Not sure how I missed that.


----------

