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

[smokedout]

Is there any chance that a mod could change the title of the thread so that we don't get people asking "why is this thread all about one person" all the time? FridgeMagnet?

lets call it the Alex Callinicos thread, then he'll have to wade though almost 800 pages before realising it hardly mentions him at all

 

[frogwoman]

Something like "liberal commentariat wankers and posers" (was originally Alex Callinicos/Laurie Penny facebook handbags)

thats not my title suggestion btw.

 

[Belushi]

What's your new title suggestion?

The Commentariat: First up against the wall

 

[TruXta]

Something like "liberal commentariat wankers and posers" (was originally Alex Callinicos/Laurie Penny facebook handbags)

I think you need a colon there after "commentariat". Else, yup, all correct.

 

[TruXta]

The Commentariat: First up against the wall

Needs to be The Commentariat: First up against the 4th wall

 

[Buckaroo]

Something like "liberal commentariat wankers and posers" (was originally Alex Callinicos/Laurie Penny facebook handbags)

thats not my title suggestion btw.

How about 'The artist formerly known as Dave'?

 

[grit]

It's never possible to say a political statement or whatever is definitely right but what you appear to be missing is that it most definitely is possible to say that some political statements are definitely wrong.

Can you provide an example please? (honest request)

 

[SpineyNorman]

Can you provide an example please? (honest request)

From you or more generally? (Not really got time to go through your posts to look for one but I could give an example of an opinion on a political or social issue that is demonstrably false.

For example, people who claim that the protocols are a legitimate historical document and that all revolutions since were orchestrated by Jewish elites are demonstrably wrong, and viewed by anyone serious in the same way as flat earthers are viewed by the scientific community. Same with those who think we're ruled by lizard overlords (Extreme examples I know but they illustrate my point I think).

There are even ones held by some supposedly serious people that can be proven false - for example Hayek's and Thomas Friedman's arguments that capitalism is natural and developed organically and peacefully through a series of mutually beneficial exchanges - we can prove that this is completely untrue as well.

Peoples political views and opinions are always based on truth claims about how the world is now. Some of these truth claims are open to debate - the role played by class, race, gender for example - but others are not. Most serious people agree on these latter kinds of truth claims - and those who base their views on a view of the world that gets this latter kind of truth claim wrong are demonstrably wrong.

 

[grit]

There are even ones held by some supposedly serious people that can be proven false - for example Hayek's and Thomas Friedman's arguments that capitalism is natural and developed organically and peacefully through a series of mutually beneficial exchanges - we can prove that this is completely untrue as well.

Oh, you have my interest with that one, got a link?

edit: bold mine.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Not really got time to go looking for links, but you're Irish aren't you? I assume you know how the British empire imposed capitalism on that country? Similar things were done around the world too. The ethnic cleansing of the native American population to allow people to take their lands into private ownership etc. In England the enclosures acts and the raft of legislation outloawing begging and vagrancy that went with it - you may argue that despite all this the change was still desirable, but unless you want to be branded a historical illiterate you can't pretend it was peaceful.

 

[love detective]

And the history of this, their expropriation, is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire

 

[SpineyNorman]

And the history of this, their expropriation, is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire

I had that exact quote in mind as I was typing that

 

[grit]

Not really got time to go looking for links, but you're Irish aren't you? I assume you know how the British empire imposed capitalism on that country? Similar things were done around the world too. The ethnic cleansing of the native American population to allow people to take their lands into private ownership etc. In England the enclosures acts and the raft of legislation outloawing begging and vagrancy that went with it - you may argue that despite all this the change was still desirable, but unless you want to be branded a historical illiterate you can't pretend it was peaceful.

While its getting closer, its ultimately just your interpretation of someone elses secondary source.

History is written by the winners.

 

[butchersapron]

Well done grits, you just said that marx won.

 

[J Ed]

While its getting closer, its ultimately just your interpretation of someone elses secondary source.

History is written by the winners.

Is there an interpretation of the enclosures acts of it being a peaceful change? I would be very interested in that, although in the same way as I'm interested in things like Zeitgeist...

 

[DotCommunist]

or even the irish famine that caused the diaspora

 

[grit]

Well done grits, you just said that marx won.

Win what?

 

[butchersapron]

History. Can you not remember what you only just posted?

 

[grit]

History. Can you not remember what you only just posted?

lol, you are hilarious butchers *wipes year from eye*

 

[SpineyNorman]

You know the thing I was saying about informed vs ill-informed opinions grit? I think you just helped me prove that point.

This commonly accepted (among those who take the subject seriously) version of history actually goes against the interests of those who 'won' and in fact backs up Marx's account of primitive accumulation hence butchers saying that you're claiming Marx won history.

 

[SpineyNorman]

While its getting closer, its ultimately just your interpretation of someone elses secondary source.

History is written by the winners.

And just to come back to this, it isn't my interpretation of someone else's secondary source. The legislation was well documented at the time (as legislation sort of has to be) so we can go back to the primary sources for this one - no need to rely on possibly biased accounts.

 

[eoin_k]

But how do we really know that the Highland Clearances really happened? I mean were any of you actually there? I don't think so. So perhaps Grits ill informed ramblings are... you know... as valid as anyone else's "opinions".

 

[grit]

This commonly accepted (among those who take the subject seriously)

How privileged we all are to have you to make such judgments for us. Thomas Friedman has nothing on you.

 

[frogwoman]

of course some opinions are wrong and demonstratably so.

nazism for example is a political opinion but the assumptions it is based on are completely flawed. analysis from the far-right about why they are/aren't doing well electorally and where for example Golden Dawn or whatever is heading is sometimes worth reading but the worldview of the committed neo-nazi is based on facts and arguments that are demonstratably false. likewise any political viewpoint based on a political/religious agenda where the claims are that the economy etc or inequality caused by class or whatever is not the biggest problem but the biggest problem is the "decline in moral values caused by secularism" and that it would solve everyone's problems if everyone just turned to god.

the same with toryism and lib-demmery. their worldviews make some assumptions that are demonstratably false and are easily disproved, although not as extreme as the above two examples.

 

[tufty79]

it would solve everyone's problems if everyone just turned to god.

i'm considering quakerism, tbh - how bad can they be?

 

[TruXta]

i'm considering quakerism, tbh - how bad can they be?

Not very. Mostly harmless I'd say.

 

[frogwoman]

i'm considering quakerism, tbh - how bad can they be?

Well fuck yeah I mean I am not always exactly an atheist myself but if you base your political views on a religious agenda I don't think any good can come of it.

 

[tufty79]

Well fuck yeah I mean I am not always exactly an atheist myself but if you base your political views on a religious agenda I don't think any good can come of it.

i dunno, a fair few of 'em seem to be peace-loving anti-nuclear folk

e2a:
http://socialistunity.com/farewell-oliver-postgate/

Oliver Postgate was certainly not interested in military derring do. He had been a conscientious objector in the second world war, influenced by personal eccentricity and having met anarchists at art college. In his 1999 autobiography “Seeing Things” he describes how the Army was totally unprepared for conscientious objection. When conscripted he reported for duty, one day late, as advised by Quakers, and declared that he would not be prepared to serve. Quite amusingly this was regarded by the army as an administrative inconvenience rather than a political challenge. He was treated politely and humanely, and after three months in prison was released with no further obligations. This left him with the difficult job of fitting into a militarised society as a civilian, which he did by becoming an agricultural worker and part time inventor.

...Postgate was not really an overtly political man, but he came from the left intelligentsia. His father, Raymond Postgate, had been one of the most significant intellectuals to join the newly formed Communist Party of Great Britain, and Oliver’s uncle was the theorist of guild socialism GDH Cole. His mother, Daisy Lansbury, was the daughter of George Lansbury, although I am unaware of Daisy having been active in politics herself.
Oliver Postgate’s only significant foray into political activism was in the 1970s and 1980s when he became a tireless campaigner for nuclear disarmament, and he developed a convincing argument that NATO were illogical and insincere in their protestations that they would only use nuclear weapons in retaliation to a Russian attack. In fact, as he convincingly demonstrated in his pamphlet “the Emperor’s New Clothes”, the British government’s own documents admitted that NATO was prepared to make a nuclear first strike on the Soviet Union. His contribution was important because his arguments reached many who were unmoved by the more orthodox arguments from the traditional left and pacifists, he was able to use his status to appear on BBC Radio 4′ Woman’s Hour to speak against nuclear weapons, when conventional politicians could not have accessed that audience.

i might be stretching the association a bit, but from what i remember in his autobiography, he got a lot of inspiration/support/whatever from the quakers/being a quaker. i might also be remembering wrongly

e2a again: maybe not..

In those intervening years between SmallFilms of the past and SmallFilms now
Mr Postgate has occupied his mind with such weighty affairs as theology and
nuclear disarmament. He has produced at least three provocative pamphlets for the
Quakers and a short film, 'Life On Earth Perhaps' which included a direct message
to the UNA. You can see the thought processes behind his stance developing even
as far back as1969, in 'The Clangers'. Each of those films deals with a deeper issue
about our own world. We are asked to look closely at the Clangers' tiny moon and
see just how they behave when influenced by the affairs of man...

http://www.toonhound.com/oliverpostgate.htm



maybe i'll just start an oliver postgate worshipping cult instead

 

[frogwoman]

i dunno, a fair few of 'em seem to be peace-loving anti-nuclear folk

i think most of them are fine to be honest.

what i am talking about is when people consider religion too much in their political opinions. So somebody for example basing whether they like a certain politician on whether they think he/she is "good for the jews" "good for the muslims" or whatever. Or thinking that the country's problems are caused by too many people being atheists and a "decline in moral values" or whatever. or thinking that they have to support a certain war because it is religious. stuff like that.

 

[yield]

i dunno, a fair few of 'em seem to be peace-loving anti-nuclear folk

Richard Nixon was a Quaker.