|
Biggus Dickus posted:Well this is embarrasing: Saudi arms sales "In breach of International Law" Clearly you're not a serious person who knows how to make hard decisions.  edit: 1953 was a time before the 24/7 news cycle because a nuclear test was called this. Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jan 10, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
Biggus Dickus posted:Well this is embarrasing: Saudi arms sales "In breach of International Law" looking forward to the resulting Brexit from the international community as a whole
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Biggus Dickus posted:Well this is embarrasing: Saudi arms sales "In breach of International Law" Lol like anyone in that industry gives a gently caress about your piffling international laws don't you know there are PROFITS TO BE MADE *blows up some more Yemeni hospitals*. And lol, like anyone in that industry will ever be loving subject to them, either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Angepain posted:looking forward to the resulting Brexit from the international community as a whole The United Kingdom of England and Saudi Arabia, circa 2019
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:There's a certain tendency in the left (hi, SWP!) for a bunch of white dudes to take over and start shunting aside minority perspectives as a distraction from The Cause. Unironically using the term 'SJW' is a bit of a red flag (and not the good kind of red flag Absolutely not, I didn't intend it to come over that way. All I was getting at was that where people discuss gay/black/women-centric issues they should strive to do so in the context of a broader class struggle rather than prioritise their own particular niche. For example I get frustrated by wealthy white straight women who somehow think they are on a level with poor lesbian black women on account of their shared gender. I see gender/race/sexuality etc as components of a class identity and I think everyone suffers where people fail to see that. All of the discussion is very important and I don't in any way resent debate around those topics but they have to form part of a unified front. Which they easily do once you start taking the economic structures into account. ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Jan 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:36
|
|
), and while it may well not be what you meant, it creates the impression that you're grumpy about your party having to listen to all those uppity gays/blacks/women rather than focusing on the stuff that affects you as well.
|
ThomasPaine posted:Absolutely not, I didn't intend it to come over that way. All I was getting at was that where people discuss gay/black/women-centric issues they should strive to do so in the context of a broader class struggle rather than prioritise their own particular niche. For example I get frustrated by wealthy white straight women who somehow think they are on a level with poor lesbian black women on account of their shared gender. I see gender/race/sexuality etc as components of a class identity and I think everyone suffers where people fail to see that. All of the discussion is very important and I don't in any way resent debate around those topics but they have to form part of a unified front. Which they easily do once you start taking the economic structures into account. While you may believe that people will necessarily start being nice to their wives and stop calling people coons as soon as you give them a fairer economic deal (which seems questionable to me as the rich haven't stopped yet), there are ways to achieve tangible forward movement on important social issues while the world revolution isn't happening and it's fairly patronising of you to poo poo on those for not being 'pure' enough, or for not always having an economic dimension to them. There's basically no empirical evidence that 'class struggle' or reducing income inequality will also destroy social ignorance completely as a happy side effect, not without an independent normative anti-racist/anti-sexist discourse. Most of the world's current and former communist states have vehemently racist and socially regressive populations, so when a society rejects 'income inequality', however honourable a goal that may be on it's own merits, it doesn't automatically become less ignorant about other social issues. Even if inequality is the dominant factor, analysing the OTHER factors that contribute to racism and sexism is incredibly important, and that's what your colleagues are doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:The United Kingdom of England and Saudi Arabia, circa 2019 Now that's what I call a strong economy ThomasPaine posted:Absolutely not, I didn't intend it to come over that way. All I was getting at was that where people discuss gay/black/women-centric issues they should strive to do so in the context of a broader class struggle rather than prioritise their own particular niche. For example I get frustrated by wealthy white straight women who somehow think they are on a level with poor lesbian black women on account of their shared gender. I see gender/race/sexuality etc as components of a class identity and I think everyone suffers where people fail to see that. All of the discussion is very important and I don't in any way resent debate around those topics but they have to form part of a unified front. Which they easily do once you start taking the economic structures into account. The thing is that 'identity politics' usually arises as a response to minority groups being marginalised and left out, as a way of drawing attention to the problems they face and which are usually sidelined in the wider struggle. When people complain about identity politics, what they're usually saying is "your problems are less important because they only affect a minority, mine affect more people so we should all just focus on that." Which is exactly how power structures impose a hierarchy and leave minorities to deal with what they face as minorities. Look at the 'Black Lives Matter' movement that's appeared recently, in response to the disproportionate killings (and subsequent whitewashing) of black people by police etc. That was quickly answered by supposed allies, pushing the 'All Lives Matter' concept, basically attempting to erase the issue of racism and pretend it's just a wider problem that everyone faces. That's where the brocialism things come in - there are people who are fully uninterested in fixing social problems unless they relate to themselves, as privileged members of society. And they see any attention given to fixing the issues other people face as a loss for themselves and their own interests. Class solidarity would be helping people in your class with the problems they face, so you look out for each other, you're stronger as a unit, and it's harder to be divided against each other. Treating it as a zero-sum game where you pretend everyone is already equal in society makes it easier for division to appear and for that to be exploited by your enemies
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
idk the only people I have seen use the word brocialism are like suzanne moore explaining how we're all bad and unprogressive for not voting for a woman for leader of the labour party even if we had strong political disagreements with her or making the shadow cabinet pretty much a 50:50 gender split is a sign of inherent misogyny
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
XMNN posted:idk the only people I have seen use the word brocialism are like suzanne moore explaining how we're all bad and unprogressive for not voting for a woman for leader of the labour party even if we had strong political disagreements with her or making the shadow cabinet pretty much a 50:50 gender split is a sign of inherent misogyny A sort of pathetic retro-masculinism among left leaning young men is quite common, although Corbyn is probably the worst possible example of a 'brocialist'. I do know a lot of very left wing dudes who bang on about how feminism is part of the problem and just a way for capitalists to make money, it's a fairly standard trope in pub socialism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
XMNN posted:idk the only people I have seen use the word brocialism are like suzanne moore explaining how we're all bad and unprogressive for not voting for a woman for leader of the labour party even if we had strong political disagreements with her or making the shadow cabinet pretty much a 50:50 gender split is a sign of inherent misogyny I've never seen the word before but I assumed from the context it's basically socialism for FYGM assholes. FYGO I guess
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
"brocialism" is a recent portmanteau; the political consciousness of the problem (of male-chauvinist socialism) predates it and probably originates in campus struggles during the rise of the US New Left. e.g., Jo Freeman:quote:A typical example was the event that precipitated the formation of the Chicago group, the first independent group in this country. At the August 1967 National Conference for New Politics convention a women's caucus met for days, but was told its resolution wasn't significant enough to merit a floor discussion. By threatening to tie up the convention with procedural motions the women succeeded in having their statement tacked to the end of the agenda. It was never discussed. The chair refused to recognize any of the many women standing by the microphone, their hands straining upwards. When he instead called on someone to speak on "the forgotten American, the American Indian," five women rushed the podium to demand an explanation. But the chairman just patted one of them on the head (literally) and told her, "Cool down, little girl. We have more important things to talk about than women's problems." more explicitly, consider, e.g., the black revolutionary Eldridge Cleaver's concept of "pussy power" or his assertion of rape of white women as a revolutionary act. In the era of sexual liberation it became more socially acceptable for a niche of socialist men to publicly advance somewhat outré concepts of the role of women in the revolution. ronya fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Jan 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Girls are dumb idiots and fall over a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNlFps28fqE
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
Joining me now is some guy. Thing: thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Has the baffling/terrifying Joe Haines piece in the New Statesmen been posted yet
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
that man is from Innsmouth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:The United Kingdom of England and Saudi Arabia, circa 2019 We'll still have the Queen's head on the bank notes. Just not the rest of her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Has the baffling/terrifying Joe Haines piece in the New Statesmen been posted yet Not that I've seen. Why is it terrifying? Is this the one I saw mention of on Twitter this morning, some mad hysteria from a Harold Wilson era press secretary who apparently thinks the future is with people with no loving ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Not that I've seen. Why is it terrifying? Is this the one I saw mention of on Twitter this morning, some mad hysteria from a Harold Wilson era press secretary who apparently thinks the future is with people with no loving ideas? Terrifying if you think it's possible, baffling otherwise I guess. Only bringing it up because Peter Oborne's written a take in (yeah) the Daily Mail which is worth a read: http://www.donotlink.com/htyp Oborne seems to think it's plausible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Terrifying if you think it's possible, baffling otherwise I guess. To me it seems eminently possible that they would attempt it, but entirely impossible that it would succeed in actually winning an election. The only way they win, especially in marginal constituencies, is by utilising Labour's only really unique resource - people power. Voluntarily cutting themselves off from the half million people who doorstep and put up posters and do phone campaigns and run stalls in town centres &c &c &c would be loving suicidal, and would *entirely* demolish the left in England as a meaningful political entity for basically ever, unless the Labour members countrywide successfully got together and selected new MP candidates - and even then it would be questionable whether they would survive given that brand new candidates running against established opposition in marginals don't generally do so well I don't think. I'd hope, in that situation, that the SNP might consider fielding candidates south of the border. How the gently caress can people be this loving stupid seriously 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
I find it odd that there seems to be such a desire suddenly for Hilary Benn to lead the party when surely if he wanted to he would have stood for election. He probably would have had a good chance at winning too considering how poo poo the other candidates were
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:How the gently caress can people be this loving stupid seriously I assume a lot of them feel similarly to Blair: Tony Blair says he wouldn’t want a left-wing Labour party to win an election. They would rather guarantee that Labour lose than risk Corbyn winning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Jose posted:I find it odd that there seems to be such a desire suddenly for Hilary Benn to lead the party when surely if he wanted to he would have stood for election. He probably would have had a good chance at winning too considering how poo poo the other candidates were The strength of the PLP Blairite bubble knows now bounds. Even deep in the Tory heartlands I've never met a voter who backed Labour for any reason other than "they aren't the Tories" after 2001.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
NO gently caress YOU DAD posted:Hilary Benn is the current darling because he made Corbyn look like a tit by arguing against him from the front benches. A tub of lard with 'gently caress Off Corbs' written on it would be favourite for the leadership if you'd placed it in his seat. The constant suggestion of Benn as the next leader of the opposition is kind of odd. From what I recall he's never been a political superstar. And gently caress, if I have to read another article about his "speech of a lifetime", I think I'll punch the screen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Terrifying if you think it's possible, baffling otherwise I guess. I think it's completely believable that a coup could happen, I think Haines belief that it needs to happen is completely baffling. The PLP forcing out Corbyn this quickly into his term will not just ensure Labour lose in 2020, but in 2025 also. Because the party will shed members like they joined, it'll lose people who would happily campaign for it, & it risks either a growth in support for the Greens or a new party of the left which could get a decent amount of support, just enough to split the Labour vote but not enough to win many (if any) seats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
Hilary Benn's speech (printed on a dot matrix printer) for PM!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
Prince John posted:The constant suggestion of Benn as the next leader of the opposition is kind of odd. From what I recall he's never been a political superstar. And gently caress, if I have to read another article about his "speech of a lifetime", I think I'll punch the screen. Also thanks for the excerpts ronya, you generally post interesting stuff itt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I think it's completely believable that a coup could happen, I think Haines belief that it needs to happen is completely baffling. The PLP forcing out Corbyn this quickly into his term will not just ensure Labour lose in 2020, but in 2025 also. Because the party will shed members like they joined, it'll lose people who would happily campaign for it, & it risks either a growth in support for the Greens or a new party of the left which could get a decent amount of support, just enough to split the Labour vote but not enough to win many (if any) seats. I think that anyone could say "The 231 members of the PLP represent Labour in this country, not the 423,000 Labour Party members" in all seriousness and still be considered a credible political commentator, let alone a "great mind", is completely baffling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
but you see the members of the PLP were elected directly by the electorate, if they did not represent the electorate than the electorate also had the option of voting for one of the other Labour politicians standing under Labour in the same constituency
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
I could see a Labour strategist gambling on a repeat of the SDP 1983/1987 attempts, but where the SDP avoids losing to Tories in numerous constituencies (maybe if Cameron fails to manage his succession and the Tories pick someone who cannot credibly move center, maybe a Tory emboldened by Corbyn) and the thing about this: thespaceinvader posted:To me it seems eminently possible that they would attempt it, but entirely impossible that it would succeed in actually winning an election. The only way they win, especially in marginal constituencies, is by utilising Labour's only really unique resource - people power. Voluntarily cutting themselves off from the half million people who doorstep and put up posters and do phone campaigns and run stalls in town centres &c &c &c would be loving suicidal, and would *entirely* demolish the left in England as a meaningful political entity for basically ever, unless the Labour members countrywide successfully got together and selected new MP candidates - and even then it would be questionable whether they would survive given that brand new candidates running against established opposition in marginals don't generally do so well I don't think. is that there's genuine belief that the grassroots organizers are irrelevant rabble-rousers who spend their funds preaching to choirs, that the focus groups and data-guided YouGov polling should overrule them. New Labour is now old enough that there's a self-reinforcing belief by second-gen staffers who've read post-mortems on the first-gen reforms and have accepted it as a stylized fact that the national party trumps the local, because the national party did trump the local. I actually don't think this is straightforwardly true, except in the meta-New-Labour sense of it (i.e., the national party can in fact do end-runs around the local affiliations, but only if it strenuously denies doing so in the process; the illusion of the pursuit of ever-greater party democratization/transparency must be maintained). It is approximately a century too late to start preaching about the virtues of democratic centralism and the party vanguard, and besides, that's too consciously authoritarian of New Labour.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
Angepain posted:but you see the members of the PLP were elected directly by the electorate, if they did not represent the electorate than the electorate also had the option of voting for one of the other Labour politicians standing under Labour in the same constituency *carefully ignores that those MPs were first selected and voted for by their CLPs*. On another note... David Cameron: tough on crime, tough on the houses of some rioters from half a decade ago. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/09/david-cameron-vows-to-blitz-poverty-by-demolishing-uks-worst-sink-estates Yes, that's right, in an effort to BULLDOZE CRIME Call Me Dave has worked out somehow that criminals (i.e. the vast minority of people living in the only remaining council estates in London) are less likely to commit crime if they are homeless! I mean seriously, he's getting rid of some lovely estates (in London, in which thousands of people live because they cannot afford to live elsewhere and continue to work where they do) and providing piss-all money to rehouse them in the interim and making nothing but the vaguest of promises about how to replace them. Maybe neglect DID cause the riots. But you know what solves neglect? STOPPING NEGLECT. And this will undoubtedly be generalised to him being TOUGH ON CRIME nationwide. What a dick (that has been in a dead pig's head). thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Jan 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
ronya posted:"brocialism" is a recent portmanteau; the political consciousness of the problem (of male-chauvinist socialism) predates it and probably originates in campus struggles during the rise of the US New Left. e.g., Jo Freeman: Oh lol. I saw the word brocialism and thought it was from broccoli and socialism - i.e. Green Socialists haha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
I'm guessing: Tenants get guaranteed tenancy of the new homes (privately built) starting at low rents. No rent controls in the smallprint, so the rents inexorably creep up year on year until they're all socially cleansed out of the area in a decade and the houses are on the market at £500,000 - unless the arsehole falls out of the property market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:To me it seems eminently possible that they would attempt it, but entirely impossible that it would succeed in actually winning an election. The only way they win, especially in marginal constituencies, is by utilising Labour's only really unique resource - people power. Voluntarily cutting themselves off from the half million people who doorstep and put up posters and do phone campaigns and run stalls in town centres &c &c &c would be loving suicidal, and would *entirely* demolish the left in England as a meaningful political entity for basically ever, unless the Labour members countrywide successfully got together and selected new MP candidates - and even then it would be questionable whether they would survive given that brand new candidates running against established opposition in marginals don't generally do so well I don't think. What sickens me is how they throw outright abuse at the people who voted for Corbyn. They are less than people. Their votes should count for nothing. Democracy is bad when the wrong people get their way. As to the SNP fielding candidates south of the border i'm not convinced ethnic nationalism doesn't play a big enough part to make this impossible. British Isle socialism is only for the chosen of Scotland and Switzerland. English people = Icky pooey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Oh lol. I saw the word brocialism and thought it was from broccoli and socialism - i.e. Green Socialists haha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Green Socialists are watermelons. I thought the whole point of watermelons was that they were socialists on the inside, like secretly and poo poo, so it's kinda giving the game away to call yourself a green socialist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Yeah it'd be apples surely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Yeah it'd be apples surely. Socialist on the outside, white nationalist on the inside?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:They are less than people. Their votes should count for nothing. Democracy is bad when the wrong people get their way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:*carefully ignores that those MPs were first selected and voted for by their CLPs*. Provided you can make a case that they deserve it, however facetious, you can demolish people's homes no problem. Look at Dale Farm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 13:34
|
|
