Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

How left wing is this forum?

planetgeli said:
I hope you talk to them better than you talk to people on here. But I doubt it. Because you really do come across as a supercilious political know all.
Click to expand...

I liked this, not to single out a particular poster because I've no wish to ignite an argument but the know it all approach of a few posters can be off-putting. Esp for those of us, even if we've been here for years, who are still learning and taking on board stuff every day. Which is why I think it's better to share knowledge, rather than use it to denigrate/take down other posters who may not be as well-learned or savvy as they.

I've learned a lot over the years here and I appreciate urban as a very valuable resource for knowledge. And it's not as black and white as this party/ideology trumps that party/ideology because (I feel) ideologies are in a state of flux, being built upon or (healthily) questioned/improved upon. Just an opinion, natch. Others are available.

I don't know of any other site that caters for such discussions and also where people (despite disagreements) can come together.
 
:D
planetgeli said:
Your sarcasm doesn’t come across as particularly approachable.

I’m not here to defend Ming, but your quote of him replying to Serge’s point about troops being set on workers is particularly disingenuous, ignoring as you do Ming’s post about 12 posts later where he says he doesn’t agree with such government tactics. But you also characterise this as Ming believing it “necessarily entails fucking the welfare state”. Ming never said that. And if anything, Serge’s (good and proper) point was in relation to Ming saying what a good government Atlee was. A point that could be characterised, by you, if you were on a different side of the argument, as saying that the welfare state, being put in place by the same government that attacked workers, couldn’t possibly be a good thing. Like I said, surprised nobody bought eugenics into it.

I reckon you’ll find Ming’s mischaracterisation as the welfare state and NHS being a Labour Party only thing is one shared by a lot of the working class. Many people think Labour government, Nye Bevan = welfare state + NHS. Do you go around telling lol these people how superior you are for knowing the nuances involved?

I hope you talk to them better than you talk to people on here. But I doubt it. Because you really do come across as a supercilious political know all.

This place is stale. Ever wonder why you can’t attract new members through the rankling and arguments that laughingly pass for debate?

Anyway Serge Forward nice sounding pamphlet. Where do I pick one up? Edit. I clicked. But I don’t do PayPal.
Click to expand...
Just stop.
(joking).
 
Proper Tidy said:
Welfare state didn't come about because capital decided to be benevolent or because of some great crusading labour party. Even if tories had been elected in '45 we'd have seen many of the same gains/concessions. Capital in crisis and a heavily armed and trained working class will do that.

So no to the former but the latter, yeah fuck Attlee
Click to expand...
Denigration?

Ming said:
Bollocks. That was the greatest victory of the left in the history of this country and there's no way the Tories would have brought it in. That's a complete assumption on your part.
So is there anything to celebrate? Or should Attlee and Bevan hang their heads in shame?
Click to expand...
Not denigration?

planetgeli said:
And how is this victory going now comrade? You been in a strike since the miners were defeated? I have. No fucking fun.

Get real.
Click to expand...
Not denigration?

If we want to have a discussion about how to make P&P more "fuffly" ok, but take the beams from you own eyes brothers and sisters.
 
planetgeli said:
Well, at least we got around to this sensible post from the purism. Tbh Ming I’d been surprised that up until then you hadn’t been castigated for not knowing how a Liberal Party eugenicist had been responsible for the plan that helped create the NHS, thus invalidating any good that came of it and making all users fascists by their support of such a system. But then, to be fair, Serge weighed in with a bit of sense.



Which is right. Although of course we’d also had to cope with Squirrels arguments which say the Labour Party had nothing at all to do with the creation of the NHS, it all being down to the working class. Obviously it being the working class, not Bevan, who got doctors on side through hard negotiation and not a little compromise, doctors being, as they were, extremely reluctant to join in the fun.

But then we had the ideological pure Dotty weighing in with what sounds like sense, good working class sense that can’t possibly be questioned because Dotty said it right?



Do you know how much that sounds like total disrespectful bollocks to your average working class person, Not to mention to the working class within the NHS, while of course claiming to be ideologically pure non-bollocks of the highest order? To someone like me, who has now had two £20000 cancer operations that aren’t even covered by medical insurance in any other country in the world, let alone affordable to anyone on my sort of wage. Crumbs? Some fucking crumbs mate. It’s the greatest example I can think of of ‘according to need’ to which I’ve contributed (significantly less) from my ability to do so.

But no. Let’s hit Dotty’s comment with likes, because he’s a veteran on here and he speaks pure, ideological, surely unarguable, truths. In the real world. That real people understand and can get behind with their experience. And god forbid anyone who should think further than hitting ‘like’ on such bollocks. God forbid anyone who’s experience doesn’t match the ideological purity of Urban 75.

Like fuck. It’s just another example, as was some of the ranting against Ming instead of cooling correcting what he said that was wrong, of the ‘better than thou’, ‘ooh look, Ming doesn’t even know Beveridge was a Liberal’ ‘I’m so smarter than those I profess to want to help’ bollocks of what this forum is like sometimes. The bit that has no idea whatsoever how to connect with the working class because it’s too far up its own arse trying to be ideologically sound.
Click to expand...
What the fuck
 
HoratioCuthbert said:
What the fuck
Click to expand...
I’ll expand- I’m working class and I thought your post was a load of unnecessarily snide bollocks. I couldn’t connect with one single part of it. Most of those designated Know It Alls on here I find enjoyable to read even if I can’t always weigh in myself, which is a lot of the time- a lot of this is taste in writing styles isn’t it. Aren’t most of them(all?) not working class themselves? You can come up with any statement in the world and some working class people may connect with you and others will call you cunt. Given that, why would you as DLR and RS put it, lie and call the sofa a table, call it a sofa. Even if they call you a smart arse know it all and would prefer you shut up, much like a condescending teacher that feels threatened by a clever pupil. “Know it all” style, Jesus.
 
planetgeli said:
Well, at least we got around to this sensible post from the purism. Tbh Ming I’d been surprised that up until then you hadn’t been castigated for not knowing how a Liberal Party eugenicist had been responsible for the plan that helped create the NHS, thus invalidating any good that came of it and making all users fascists by their support of such a system. But then, to be fair, Serge weighed in with a bit of sense.



Which is right. Although of course we’d also had to cope with Squirrels arguments which say the Labour Party had nothing at all to do with the creation of the NHS, it all being down to the working class. Obviously it being the working class, not Bevan, who got doctors on side through hard negotiation and not a little compromise, doctors being, as they were, extremely reluctant to join in the fun.

But then we had the ideological pure Dotty weighing in with what sounds like sense, good working class sense that can’t possibly be questioned because Dotty said it right?



Do you know how much that sounds like total disrespectful bollocks to your average working class person, Not to mention to the working class within the NHS, while of course claiming to be ideologically pure non-bollocks of the highest order? To someone like me, who has now had two £20000 cancer operations that aren’t even covered by medical insurance in any other country in the world, let alone affordable to anyone on my sort of wage. Crumbs? Some fucking crumbs mate. It’s the greatest example I can think of of ‘according to need’ to which I’ve contributed (significantly less) from my ability to do so.

But no. Let’s hit Dotty’s comment with likes, because he’s a veteran on here and he speaks pure, ideological, surely unarguable, truths. In the real world. That real people understand and can get behind with their experience. And god forbid anyone who should think further than hitting ‘like’ on such bollocks. God forbid anyone who’s experience doesn’t match the ideological purity of Urban 75.

Like fuck. It’s just another example, as was some of the ranting against Ming instead of cooling correcting what he said that was wrong, of the ‘better than thou’, ‘ooh look, Ming doesn’t even know Beveridge was a Liberal’ ‘I’m so smarter than those I profess to want to help’ bollocks of what this forum is like sometimes. The bit that has no idea whatsoever how to connect with the working class because it’s too far up its own arse trying to be ideologically sound.
Click to expand...
Hi planetgeli, I realise that this post is full of rhetorical irony and black-humour-filled hyperbole. It’s an enjoyable rant. However, what you’ve done is construct a straw man, and then riduculed it. Which, to be fair, you seem conscious of doing, and seem implicitly to acknowledge doing. So fair do’s.

However, much in the tradition of bulletin board discussions, this thread is creating more heat than light by people talking past each other and making sarcastic quips people of their own ideological grouping will enjoy, but which others will miss and misinterpet. This is of course not your doing. It's the nature of online debate.

redsquirrel kindly linked to an old post of mine that outlines my views on political stances and the accusation of ideological purity-seeking. I have re-read that old post, and I still stand by it. If you have the time or inclination, I'd be happy to field your questions or comments on it. (It's here, should you be so inclined).

You are of course correct that the NHS is a prize worth having and defending. It has saved my life more than once, and like you, I've had expensive treatment I probably wouldn't have had on my income under the US-style insurance system. (The US health system and its deficiencies was once an interest of mine, and I kept myself informed on it, although my knowledge these days is restricted to the more general. But I have a couple of old books that I think are still relevant on the ideology and practicalities of such a private insurance-based system, and which I'm happy to reference once I lay my hands on them).

As you probably know, nobody to whom you are imputing such views is arguing that the NHS is not a worthwhile institution. The disagreement such as it is involves differing analyses of socio-economic historical forces.

I am an anarchist communist (although not a member of the ACG - although I am considering membership once I get a few personal circumstances straightened out). My view is that the NHS and more general Welfare State were created by the establishment as a response by the state to various pressures it knew it had to respond to. Both of those post-War institutions had their roots in the (capital L) Liberal Party intellectual ruminations that were responding to conditions. What were the conditions? By the time of the creation of the institutions, the historical weight of two world wars, a depression, the social change resulting from those, and decades, centuries even, of organised working class pressure on the working week, the working day, employment conditions, employment security, safety at work, and numerous other worthwhile and necessary battles . The establishement knew it was at an historic point where it had to make consessions. (capital L) Liberal politicians had been arguing this for a long time. Papers and reports had been written. Even the (capital C) Tory establishment (Yes, I know. It's a joke) acknowledged this. Indeed, during WWII Churchill realised that coming out of the war he'd have to act on these if he was to keep a returning demobbed, army of ex-conscripts satisfied. It was necessary to reach a compromise between (small l) labour and capital. The historic point came after Armistice, and it was a result of decades of working class action, and historical conditions.

So, yes, whoever had won that post war General Election would have established a welfare state. In the event, it was Atlee's government, but based on the work of Liberals (such as William Beveridge, who reported during the war on its need). Had it been Churchill, his government would have based their institutions on the same reports. No doubt the results would have differed, but the fact that the post-War Consensus held until the mid-70s (when the Callaghan government was the first UK government to start introducing monetarist principles, and to question the role of state education etc.) shows that it would not have differed by all that much. For an idea of why I think that, search the term "Butskellism"). (Incidentally, if you're wondering why the US conditions were different, that's because the balance of power between labour and capital in the US was different, and because inter-war developments such as the New Deal had already used Keynsian ideas to release some of the pressure that had built up there).

So, as I think that fleshes out a little, nobody arguing from a generally "socialist" stance (ie from a class-analysis-informed, pro-social ownership, pro-workers' self management stance) that the NHS and Welfare State were not a good thing. And they're actually giving more agency in their establishment than some passages in your post seem to be willing to give.

None of this is to say you have to agree with that analysis. But it is - generally speaking - the sort of analysis you'd expect from someone from the (small c) communist end of the socialist spectrum. Other positions will have their own analyses.

I hope you find this helpful, and that it contributes to a discussion in which we can talk past each other a bit less.

All the best.
 
danny la rouge said:
Hi planetgeli, I realise that this post is full of rhetorical irony and black-humour-filled hyperbole. It’s an enjoyable rant. However, what you’ve done is construct a straw man, and then riduculed it. Which, to be fair, you seem conscious of doing, and seem implicitly to acknowledge doing. So fair do’s.

However, much in the tradition of bulletin board discussions, this thread is creating more heat than light by people talking past each other and making sarcastic quips people of their own ideological grouping will enjoy, but which others will miss and misinterpet. This is of course not your doing. It's the nature of online debate.

redsquirrel kindly linked to an old post of mine that outlines my views on political stances and the accusation of ideological purity-seeking. I have re-read that old post, and I still stand by it. If you have the time or inclination, I'd be happy to field your questions or comments on it. (It's here, should you be so inclined).

You are of course correct that the NHS is a prize worth having and defending. It has saved my life more than once, and like you, I've had expensive treatment I probably wouldn't have had on my income under the US-style insurance system. (The US health system and its deficiencies was once an interest of mine, and I kept myself informed on it, although my knowledge these days is restricted to the more general. But I have a couple of old books that I think are still relevant on the ideology and practicalities of such a private insurance-based system, and which I'm happy to reference once I lay my hands on them).

As you probably know, nobody to whom you are imputing such views is arguing that the NHS is not a worthwhile institution. The disagreement such as it is involves differing analyses of socio-economic historical forces.

I am an anarchist communist (although not a member of the ACG - although I am considering membership once I get a few personal circumstances straightened out). My view is that the NHS and more general Welfare State were created by the establishment as a response by the state to various pressures it knew it had to respond to. Both of those post-War institutions had their roots in the (capital L) Liberal Party intellectual ruminations that were responding to conditions. What were the conditions? By the time of the creation of the institutions, the historical weight of two world wars, a depression, the social change resulting from those, and decades, centuries even, of organised working class pressure on the working week, the working day, employment conditions, employment security, safety at work, and numerous other worthwhile and necessary battles . The establishement knew it was at an historic point where it had to make consessions. (capital L) Liberal politicians had been arguing this for a long time. Papers and reports had been written. Even the (capital C) Tory establishment (Yes, I know. It's a joke) acknowledged this. Indeed, during WWII Churchill realised that coming out of the war he'd have to act on these if he was to keep a returning demobbed, army of ex-conscripts satisfied. It was necessary to reach a compromise between (small l) labour and capital. The historic point came after Armistice, and it was a result of decades of working class action, and historical conditions.

So, yes, whoever had won that post war General Election would have established a welfare state. In the event, it was Atlee's government, but based on the work of Liberals (such as William Beveridge, who reported during the war on its need). Had it been Churchill, his government would have based their institutions on the same reports. No doubt the results would have differed, but the fact that the post-War Consensus held until the mid-70s (when the Callaghan government was the first UK government to start introducing monetarist principles, and to question the role of state education etc.) shows that it would not have differed by all that much. For an idea of why I think that, search the term "Butskellism"). (Incidentally, if you're wondering why the US conditions were different, that's because the balance of power between labour and capital in the US was different, and because inter-war developments such as the New Deal had already used Keynsian ideas to release some of the pressure that had built up there).

So, as I think that fleshes out a little, nobody arguing from a generally "socialist" stance (ie from a class-analysis-informed, pro-social ownership, pro-workers' self management stance) that the NHS and Welfare State were not a good thing. And they're actually giving more agency in their establishment than some passages in your post seem to be willing to give.

None of this is to say you have to agree with that analysis. But it is - generally speaking - the sort of analysis you'd expect from someone from the (small c) communist end of the socialist spectrum. Other positions will have their own analyses.

I hope you find this helpful, and that it contributes to a discussion in which we can talk past each other a bit less.

All the best.
Click to expand...
Well said Danny.
Only thing I'd want to add to that results from my reading of John Bew's biog of Attlee; "Citizen Clem". Not a tome I'd necessarily have picked up, but my aged Father-in-law lent it and...you know...they then ask you about it!:D

Howsomedever...the thing that I remember about the early/mid WW2 negotiations between Churchill & Attlee was Bew's admiration for the skill with which Attlee convinced Churchill of the need to carry the working class on the basis of the future NHS/Welfare state. I didn't approach the biog with an open mind, but my respect for Attlee's wartime political acumen rose after reading it.
 
I confess to having a real soft spot for Bevan. Proper trade union MP, father blacklisted when he was a kid. Great turn of phrase too, whether its stuffed their throats with gold or no amount of cajolery. Resigned over the introduction of prescription charged too iirc (not sure if that makese him an ideological purist?)

But the conditions that allowed him to be minister of health and allowed him to force the NHS through were created by wider forces well beyond his control.

Someone will probably come along and tell me he supported Altlee calling in the troops on striking dockers and spoil my illusion now :(
 
SpineyNorman said:
Someone will probably come along and tell me he supported Altlee calling in the troops on striking dockers and spoil my illusion now :(
Click to expand...

When Bevan was Minister of Health:

"The hard core of habitual vagrants, including men who are work-shy, anti-social or recalcitrant, should also be given suitable treatment. For the limited number of men in this group firmness must, when necessary, be applied if reasonable discipline is to be maintained, and a spread of idle vagabondage discouraged.”
(Reynold's News, 7/6/46.)

Sorry. :(
 
imposs1904 said:
When Bevan was Minister of Health:

"The hard core of habitual vagrants, including men who are work-shy, anti-social or recalcitrant, should also be given suitable treatment. For the limited number of men in this group firmness must, when necessary, be applied if reasonable discipline is to be maintained, and a spread of idle vagabondage discouraged.”
(Reynold's News, 7/6/46.)

Sorry. :(
Click to expand...
Bastard :mad:

No more heroes any more :(
 
Idle vagabondage is my life's work. Loafing, dodging responsibility, light shoplifting.

But the more austere left takes a dim view and Bevan was not unlike Marx & Engels in their attitudes to layabouts

Lumpenproletariat - Wikipedia




However leftwing this place is, it's not the po-faced kind. I remember the IMG saying that drugs were a bourgeois distraction
 
Last edited:
JuanTwoThree said:
Idle vagabondage is my life's work. Loafing, dodging responsibility, light shoplifting.

But the more austere left takes a dim view and Bevan was not unlike Marx & Engels in their attitudes to layabouts

Lumpenproletariat - Wikipedia




However leftwing this place is, it's not the po-faced kind. I remember the IMG saying that drugs were a bourgeois distraction
Click to expand...
When I was a trot I knew an older trot who hated swearing to the point that even a stray shit or knob would make him visibly distressed, a fuck or cunt would get you a lecture on how cadres should act like working class leaders or some bollocks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kid_Eternity
Collective - new left wing party?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
6K
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
Kid_Eternity
“Left-wing anarchist guilty of terror offences”
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
brogdale
brogdale
Serene
Right-wing pundit Candace Owens now barred from New Zealand as well as Australia
2 3 4
Replies
100
Views
3K
emanymton
emanymton
danny la rouge
Left conversion
2 3 4
Replies
118
Views
4K
PTK
PTK
N
Why do right-wing populists succeed?
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
nightowl
N
Back
Top Bottom