Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[toggle]

Methodism as 'psychic masturbation'.

I was told that Thompson was raised a Methodist so had a bit of an issue with it, blamed it for a lot of the things he thought was wrong in society and for personal stuff. There's an essay in Hobsbawm's labouring men as well.


A lot of the interest from the British Marxists goes back to Halevy's thesis. that Methodism prevented a revolution in Britain. the bloke had a slight issue with starting with assumptions and misrepresenting correlation with causation IMO.it's back to the sects being successful in areas where their teaching fitted, rather than them causing massive changes in society. halevy's theorem won't fit even in Cornwall, IMO. Although I have read Marxist analysis of Cornwall that does work, more examination of the socio-economic developments than attempting to explain the religion (bloke called Roy Green, Cornish historian who ended up teaching history in an East German uni)

 

[SpineyNorman]

I think it's more a response to those who see revolution as violent by principle, and who fetishise that violence. Because, sadly, there are plenty of people who do exactly that.

That's not the point delroy was making though - quite the opposite (at least that's how I read it anyway)

 

[caleb]

That's not the point delroy was making though - quite the opposite (at least that's how I read it anyway)

Perhaps not, but linking to footage of Syria and suggesting that it's what revolution looks like? I don't think that's quite right, and again - regardless of the intention - overplays the violent, destructive nature of revolution.

 

[Delroy Booth]

I think it's more a response to those who see revolution as violent by principle, and who fetishise that violence. Because, sadly, there are plenty of people who do exactly that.

There's always a danger of that, granted, that people will fetishize violence as an end in itself, but a revolution will be violent by necessity. If you challenge the state's monopoly of violence then that's what it entails. Anyone who doesn't realise that's what it entails is missing the point. That's why I feel a strange sympathy with the maoist grouplets in France during 68 who advocated the armed insurrection, even if it was pure pie the in sky, because the fact is once you've gone that far and actually challenged the state itself there's no turning back then, you can't just call ACAS and go back to the negotiating table once you've challenged the legitimacy of the state. You either have to see it through or lose.

And look what happened after 68 - De Gaulle came back with avengence. It was actually massive defeat in many ways 68.

It's too nice out for me to be staying in going over this stuff but later on I'll come back with some more thoughts on it.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Perhaps not, but linking to footage of Syria and suggesting that it's what revolution looks like? I don't think that's quite right, and again - regardless of the intention - overplays the violent, destructive nature of revolution.

It was clearly intended as a simple way of illustrating a point. I would be very surprised if the meaning it intended to convey was, 'all revolutions go exactly like this' - more that they're not the 'nice things' Laurie claims they are and that they always involve fairly extreme violence, in which people who don't deserve it are hurt and killed.

Unless every revolution in history is a kind of exception to the rule of course.

 

[Delroy Booth]

It was clearly intended as a simple way of illustrating a point. I would be very surprised if the meaning it intended to convey was, 'all revolutions go exactly like this' - more that they're not the 'nice things' Laurie claims they are and that they always involve fairly extreme violence, in which people who don't deserve it are hurt and killed.

Unless every revolution in history is a kind of exception to the rule of course.

That's the point. That revolutions are violent things, how violent exactly depending on a lot of things of course, but violence is pretty central to overthrowing a government. There may be exceptions but that's the rule.

 

[DotCommunist]

its not a revolution unless I get to see bupa endorsed giblets on a wooden platter

 

[Delroy Booth]

its not a revolution unless I get to see bupa endorsed giblets on a wooden platter

Anthony Seldon?

 

[caleb]

That's the point. That revolutions are violent things, how violent exactly depending on a lot of things of course, but violence is pretty central to overthrowing a government. There may be exceptions but that's the rule.

And my point - and by extension Dauve's - is that there is far more to revolution that simply overthrowing a government.

 

[SpineyNorman]

And my point - and by extension Dauve's - is that there is far more to revolution that simply overthrowing a government.

Since nobody said revolutions were just about overthrowing the government I'm not really sure what point it is you're making

 

[SpineyNorman]

I can't actually think of any exceptions to that rule - has there ever been a revolution that was carried through without some form of mass violence? I certainly can't think of any.

 

[Delroy Booth]

And my point - and by extension Dauve's - is that there is far more to revolution that simply overthrowing a government.

Who's disputing that though? I'm certainly not.

It's the idea you could overthrow the state (or present the government or the ruling class etc) without the use of violence is what I'm getting at. That revolutions are nice things when it's nothing of the sort, it's a traumatic and violent exercise. The extent of the violence depends on a lot of contigent factors, but it's always going to be there in one form or another. Without it the state can just crush it using it's monopoly of violence.

 

[Delroy Booth]

I can't actually think of any exceptions to that rule - has there ever been a revolution that was carried through without some form of mass violence? I certainly can't think of any.

Or even the threat of mass violence? The threat of violence alone might be enough to win certain concessions short of a revolution, it might set into motion events that lead to the otherthrow of a state or government, but it's always there even if it's latent.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Or even the threat of mass violence? The threat of violence alone might be enough to win certain concessions short of a revolution, it might set into motion events that lead to the otherthrow of a state or government, but it's always there even if it's latent.

I can't actually even think of a scenario where just the threat would be enough - even if they're (as in whoever the old elite is) sensible or scared enough not to directly engage in violence against you they can be relied upon to arm, support and place fascist loons and the like so they can sabotage stuff and generally wreak havoc. Unless by some almost historical fluke the revolution took place simultaneously across the globe so that there was no safe haven for the old elites.

 

[Delroy Booth]

I can't actually even think of a scenario where just the threat would be enough - even if they're (as in whoever the old elite is) sensible or scared enough not to directly engage in violence against you they can be relied upon to arm, support and place fascist loons and the like so they can sabotage stuff and generally wreak havoc. Unless by some almost historical fluke the revolution took place simultaneously across the globe so that there was no safe haven for the old elites.

True, I can't off the top of my head, and certainly not the kind of revolution we'd be after anyway. You could probably cause a dictator to resign and flee to a safe country with the threat of violence, but would that could as a revolution? You've just got rid of a leader and someone and replaced them with someone more aligned to your interests - something that can be achieved through parliamentary democracy in many parts of the world, so I wouldn't be so sure if you could even call it a revolution.

I've gotta go out shortly but I'll mull this over and dig out some books and we'll have a good old natter about it later on. I wanna go out get some sun

 

[thedockerslad]

Or even the threat of mass violence? The threat of violence alone might be enough to win certain concessions short of a revolution, it might set into motion events that lead to the otherthrow of a state or government, but it's always there even if it's latent.

I see the Turkish ruling class are getting a little hot under the collar - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22767622

 

[JHE]

I can't actually think of any exceptions to that rule - has there ever been a revolution that was carried through without some form of mass violence? I certainly can't think of any.

Most of the revolutions in 1989 were pretty bloodless. (Romania was the exception.)

 

[caleb]

Since nobody said revolutions were just about overthrowing the government I'm not really sure what point it is you're making

Delroy seemed to imply that at various points, he's cleared it up. But the point was: there's much more to revolution that violence and overthrowing a government. Syria is hardly a good example of what revolution looks like, certainly not what a social revolution will look like at any rate.

The other point: Laurie doesn't believe in revolution anyway. The 'this is why we can't have nice stuff...' shit was some internet meme, rather than a serious point worthy of critique.

 

[DotCommunist]

Delroy seemed to imply that at various points, he's cleared it up. But the point was: there's much more to revolution that violence and overthrowing a government. Syria is hardly a good example of what revolution looks like, certainly not what a social revolution will look like at any rate.

The other point: Laurie doesn't believe in revolution anyway. The 'this is why we can't have nice stuff...' shit was some internet meme, rather than a serious point worthy of critique.

thats a real ballache is that. I had assumed Penny would be leading us into the glorious dawn while consigning the pigdogs of imperialism to fiery grave

 

[caleb]

thats a real ballache is that. I had assumed Penny would be leading us into the glorious dawn while consigning the pigdogs of imperialism to fiery grave

Who needs guns when we have her red pen of justice anyway?

 

[The39thStep]

Also a surprisingly large number of suffragettes went on to get involved in the British Union of Fascists - Stephen Dorril mentions it in his biography of Mosley.

why surprisingly?

 

[The39thStep]

e-fag to replace rollies

Not in France apparantly

 

[DotCommunist]

Not in France apparantly

le e-pen

 

[Firky]

Also a surprisingly large number of suffragettes went on to get involved in the British Union of Fascists - Stephen Dorril mentions it in his biography of Mosley.

Mary Richardson IIRC. She was the leader of the Women's Branch of the BUF and a bit of a pyromaniac.

Had the nick name Slasher.

 

[andysays]

Come on Delroy, you really expect the likes of "the bubble" to be the ones fighting and dying "on the barricades"? The woman herself doesn't even have the bottle to take lumps for her journalism (remember the shitting in New York when she thought she might get a shoeing from NYPD, so stayed at home?). The bubble are much more likely to swan in once the fighting is over, and then try to take some credit for "inspiring the masses with revolutionary prose". Some nut on another board compared Penny with Rosa Luxemburg, and was quite upset when I said "Rosa was a revolutionary socialist who spent much of her adult life physically protesting on the streets when she wasn't writing polemic. Laurie Penny is a chancer".

And also spent time in prison as a result

 

[el-ahrairah]

Most of the revolutions in 1989 were pretty bloodless. (Romania was the exception.)

but that didn't happen in a bubble, did it? it wasn't like one day a load of people from the internet went out into the streets and expected the government to step down for them. there was a lot of history leading up to those events, IYSWIM.

 

[Lo Siento.]

why surprisingly?

quite. Pseudo-paramilitary organisation, pro-imperialist, penchant for uniforms, mostly middle class... signs all there.

 

[JHE]

but that didn't happen in a bubble, did it? it wasn't like one day a load of people from the internet went out into the streets and expected the government to step down for them. there was a lot of history leading up to those events, IYSWIM.

There is always a lot of history leading up to a revolution whether it is beautifully peaceful, horrifyingly bloody or anywhere in between

 

[el-ahrairah]

you know what i mean

 

[SpineyNorman]

why surprisingly?

Maybe a bad way of putting it. But they're usually presented as being progressive.