PM Boris Johnson - monster thread for a monster twat

[Pickman's model]

Well, if you remove market liberalism from your definition of being a liberal, then you can only define it with reference to democracy.

And the communists in the USSR believed that they had and would continue to surpass liberalism. Believing that one is democratic doesn't make one tolerant or a peace-loving hippie, ha.

yeh i didn't expect much of an answer from you. and my expectations certainly not exceeded.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Racism, elitist snobbery - Boris excels at that. Are you a fan of that as well you tory bastard?

Dear Lord, a talking dog turd, what next?

 

[Sasaferrato]

Eton scholarships - and there isn't only the King's Scholarship, there are many - are a selection mechanism. You can do the entry stuff, but if you don't interview well - if they don't believe that you'll fit in - you will be bounced.

Same as any establishment then? I believe the job market works in much the same way, you can be well qualified and brilliant, but if the interview panel don't think you will fit in...

 

[Sasaferrato]

Livingstone won 2 mayoral elections without the media behind him. In fact, with the Evening Standard actively campaigning against him.
Johnson scraped through the "Ken vs Boris" show of his first election with the Evening Standard actively campaigning for him.

What does that tell you about who Boris is, and what he's in power for?

Livingstone had one hell of a lot of councils behind him, yet still lost.

What is he in power for? Do you really not know? He's in power for the sake of power, same as every other politician.

 

[two sheds]

You were making some silly point about Stalinism (or what you understand it be) then. With a pretend conversation about socialism and the Soviet Union to get to that.

I'm not sure which bit of what I said you're responding to since you've not quoted it. But I wouldn't agree that 20 million deaths is a “silly point” myself.

A “pretend conversation” are you saying I made this up?

Why can't Stalin be a Communist? I don't see that as a problem personally. He was. And the creation of a socialist society won't involve violence? Has there never been violence and killing in the name of and belief in liberal democracy for example?

She's my neighbour, she only moved in a couple of months ago - I'm not going to start with a conversation that tries to justify a fucking political system that involved the death of 20 million people.

And you're on dodgy philosophical grounds if you're accusing liberals of mass murder while seeing 20 million dead in support of your own ideals as 'not a problem'.

You are seriously saying that liberals can not be racist?

You are seriously asking that as a question?

Ok, no I'm not saying that. Could you now answer my original question with a proper response not involving straw? What definition of liberal are you using that liberals (not even 'some liberals' but 'liberals') 'excel' at racism?

 

[Sasaferrato]

And no, that wouldn't work for me as a response. The next question is likely to be "ah yes and which of those two led to 20 million people dying?"

Arguably, capitalism has killed more people than communism.

Capitalism isn't the ideal perhaps, but every other system is worse.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Same as any establishment then? I believe the job market works in much the same way, you can be well qualified and brilliant, but if the interview panel don't think you will fit in...

You've made my argument for me.

 

[two sheds]

Arguably, capitalism has killed more people than communism.

Quite possibly, although 50 million's a fairly high bar to beat (although that is for 'people who called themselves communists' rather than 'communism' itself I'd have though).

Capitalism isn't the ideal perhaps, but every other system is worse.

That seems to contradict your first statement. Bit fucking inefficient to be killing so many millions.

 

[Sasaferrato]

You've made my argument for me.

No, not at all. You implied that the need to have people who fitted in with the existing group was unique to Eton, it isn't.

I was always a great fan of jobs that interviewed, I never failed to get a job I applied for if final selection was by interview. I say was, because I will be out of the job market in 18 months.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Livingstone had one hell of a lot of councils behind him, yet still lost.

Having councils behind you is meaningless with regard to the GLA mayoralty, you fathead. They're not allowed to contribute to or publicise your campaign. They may only publicise the fact of the election.

Johnson had a regional paper with a million-plus circulation - and an estimated 3.5 million readership - front-paging him for several months in the run-up to the 2008 election, and again for the 2012. You can't buy that sort of publicity.
And he still only scraped in about 130,000 votes in front of Livingstone. So much for his brilliance and popularity.

What is he in power for? Do you really not know? He's in power for the sake of power, same as every other politician.

No, he's in power for the sake of influence and self-enrichment, the same as every other politician. Power without influence and money isn't much of a catch.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No, not at all. You implied that the need to have people who fitted in with the existing group was unique to Eton, it isn't.

I didn't imply anything of the sort. Read my post again.

 

[stethoscope]

It's already been pointed out to Sas about a month ago, that Johnson only beat Livingstone narrowly after 2nd round (both in 2008 and 2012).

 

[two sheds]

Sorry about the derail by the way - I should really raise it on the 'liberals' thread but I'm not sure I could take the abuse.

Your respondent would be being fatuous, unless they had some knowledge of what that "20 million people dying" actually meant.

I'd assumed most died from starvation or the cold, most of the rest died from disagreeing with Stalin (although those two classes would overlap).

If the deaths were avoidable then I'd disagree that it was fatuous.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Quite possibly, although 50 million's a fairly high bar to beat (although that is for 'people who called themselves communists' rather than 'communism' itself I'd have though).



That seems to contradict your first statement. Bit fucking inefficient to be killing so many millions.

It was a non sequitur, merely a passing thought that although capitalism is a bit more civilised in its killing, death occurs just the same.

Depends who you are killing. Hitler doesn't have the monopoly on removing 'useless eaters'. Capitalism wants fit workers, who preferrably die just before pensions are payable. Actually, I don't know if the death engendered by capitalism is intentional or in

Having councils behind you is meaningless with regard to the GLA mayoralty, you fathead. They're not allowed to contribute to or publicise your campaign. They may only publicise the fact of the election.

Johnson had a regional paper with a million-plus circulation - and an estimated 3.5 million readership - front-paging him for several months in the run-up to the 2008 election, and again for the 2012. You can't buy that sort of publicity.
And he still only scraped in about 130,000 votes in front of Livingstone. So much for his brilliance and popularity.



No, he's in power for the sake of influence and self-enrichment, the same as every other politician. Power without influence and money isn't much of a catch.

Oh no, cannot agree. Swinney is a prime example of the power hungry, but not seeking personal gain.

 

[Sasaferrato]

It's already been pointed out to Sas about a month ago, that Johnson only beat Livingstone narrowly after 2nd round (both in 2008 and 2012).

How many votes does it take to win? One. One single vote more than the other guy. Given the population make up of London, either there were left wingers voting for Boris, or, more likely, not voting at all. There is no way, given the demographic of London that Boris should have won, but he did. Twice in fact, once and then again. Take that you Godless commie horde.

I realise that Boris is no saint, indeed would not even be considered for 'Servant of God', never mind canonisation, but he has a certain flair. I don't know if I fancy him for PM though, although it would certainly be interesting, the country would perhaps not survive it. On second thoughts, fuck it, let's see what happens. If we can survive Blair and the most incompetent chancellor in history, we can survive Boris.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I didn't imply anything of the sort. Read my post again.

Well, either you did imply, or your post is devoid of meaning.

Ah. Dinner.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry about the derail by the way - I should really raise it on the 'liberals' thread but I'm not sure I could take the abuse.



I'd assumed most died from starvation or the cold, most of the rest died from disagreeing with Stalin (although those two classes would overlap).

If the deaths were avoidable then I'd disagree that it was fatuous.

"20 million people dying" wasn't a result of "Communism", it was - even where some deaths were intentional - often more to do with attempting to socially-advance a peasant society into an industrial society with no real map of where to go, and being stuck with imperial-era infrastructure that was, at best, already failing by the time of the November revolution, and which was impossible to quickly improve.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well, either you did imply, or your post is devoid of meaning.

Ah. Dinner.

No, you inferred something from my post that wasn't implied.

That's because you're a dick.

 

[two sheds]

"20 million people dying" wasn't a result of "Communism", it was - even where some deaths were intentional - often more to do with attempting to socially-advance a peasant society into an industrial society with no real map of where to go, and being stuck with imperial-era infrastructure that was, at best, already failing by the time of the November revolution, and which was impossible to quickly improve.

Interesting, although you could still put the excess deaths down to communism if that (socially advancing a peasant society into an industrial society) being the aim got in the way of an aim of "feeding, housing and clothing your people".

You'd certainly need to offset it against the number who died under the tsars over a similar period, though, allowing for things like weather-induced famines. As with the French revolution, you hear a lot about the aristos who died without hearing much about the peasants who'd previously died because of the aristos.

 

[seventh bullet]

It was the result of attempting to build a socialist society, an accelerated capitalist-socialist transition under revolutionary state control. In the 1930s the Stalinists said that the foundations of a new mode of production called at this stage socialism had been built (full communism comes later) and the USSR was the most democratic state in the whole world. They weren't telling porkies. They believed this shit.

And where have I said twenty million people dying is not a problem? Why are you twisting my words? I said I don't have a problem with Stalin being called a Communist. He was one. My 'ideals'? What are they? You have spent the best part of a day trying to make out that I'm a Stalinist, all because in some vague way you identify as a liberal and have taken offence at the view liberalism is a murderous ideology.

 

[nino_savatte]

It was a non sequitur, merely a passing thought that although capitalism is a bit more civilised in its killing, death occurs just the same.

"Civilised killing". Now there's a thing. Is that like "progressive eugenics"? (qv. Toby Young)

 

[two sheds]

And where have I said twenty million people dying is not a problem? Why are you twisting my words? I said I don't have a problem with Stalin being called a Communist. He was one.

Yes and you followed on with "And the creation of a socialist society won't involve violence? Has there never been violence and killing in the name of and belief in liberal democracy for example?"

You're defending Stalin's violence, hence my confusion that you are some sort of Stalinist. My neighbour would similarly think that I was some sort of Stalinist if I defended his violence, which is why I wouldn't want to do that.

My 'ideals'? What are they? You have spent the best part of a day trying to make out that I'm a Stalinist, all because in some vague way you identify as a liberal and have taken offence at the view liberalism is a murderous ideology.

By ideals I meant the "creation of a socialist society" that you referred to. (It doesn't help that you're not quoting the exact sentence that you're cricitising by the way).

This all started because you said liberals 'excel' at being racist. Two pages ago I asked you perfectly politely what definition of liberal you were using. You don't want to tell me. That's fine, but we could have avoided all this if you'd just said "I don't want to tell you".

 

[seventh bullet]

"20 million people dying" wasn't a result of "Communism", it was - even where some deaths were intentional - often more to do with attempting to socially-advance a peasant society into an industrial society with no real map of where to go, and being stuck with imperial-era infrastructure that was, at best, already failing by the time of the November revolution, and which was impossible to quickly improve.

Intentional deaths were very much linked to the heralding of socialism (as they understood it). It's similar to Plekhanov's 'last gasp.' As socialism nears the class struggle heightens to its most viscious level. The dispossession of enemy classes during the dictatorship of the proletariat sees its remnants resist, that resistance only getting stronger as socialism approaches. They quite literally have to be destroyed. It's more dangerous under the particular conditions of Soviet society at that time (a viable 'socialist' society under the constant threat posed by stronger capitalist encirclement). None of this makes me a Stalinist two sheds . Don't assume that a look at Stalinism on its own terms means I share those very same positions.

 

[seventh bullet]

Yes and you followed on with "And the creation of a socialist society won't involve violence? Has there never been violence and killing in the name of and belief in liberal democracy for example?"

You're defending Stalin's violence, hence my confusion that you are some sort of Stalinist. My neighbour would similarly think that I was some sort of Stalinist if I defended his violence, which is why I wouldn't want to do that.



By ideals I meant the "creation of a socialist society" that you referred to. (It doesn't help that you're not quoting the exact sentence that you're cricitising by the way).

This all started because you said liberals 'excel' at being racist. Two pages ago I asked you perfectly politely what definition of liberal you were using. You don't want to tell me. That's fine, but we could have avoided all this if you'd just said "I don't want to tell you".

I'm not defending Stalinist violence by wanting to understand it, to place it into some context. If I was a Stalinist would I be using 'Stalinist' as a self-designation? Describing the so-called 'socialist' system of state ownership in the Soviet Union as Stalinism? Wouldn't I be a Communist? And the only proper Communist is one who adheres to Marxism-Leninism? Is the Stalinist conception of socialism the only one?

Of course violence has to be dealt with, its purpose, its problems discussed and decided upon. Do you think those who benefit the most from this current state of affairs will simply give it all away? They maintain armies and police forces, use their wealth to divide and turn people against one another.

Liberalism can include racism, yes, and historically with capitalist expansion can have no problem with mass murder too. And more recently where the two have come into imperialist conflict there has been all manner of horrific violence. Some examples may pose problems for you re liberalism. But you've personalised this, as in you identify as a liberal (some fluffy position of just being really nice and stuff) therefore I'm unwarranted in calling you a racist or a defender of mass murder. I'm not doing that. So looking back your whole purpose on this thread since then has been to portray me as a defender of Stalinist mass murder. It's a bit childish really, isn't it? Hurt feelings.

 

[two sheds]

I asked you what definition of liberal you were using to say that liberals 'excel' in racism. Five? times of asking and still no reply.

 

[seventh bullet]

I was using the one provided by butchers, which you don't recognise. We can look at it further if you like. Being a liberal is being nice though. Now, answer my questions. All of them. Explain why I am a Stalinist.

 

[two sheds]

I was using the one provided by butchers, which you don't recognise. We can look at it further if you like. Being a liberal is being nice though. Now, answer my questions. All of them. Explain why I am a Stalinist.

Well I've said why I don't think what butchers said is a good definition - it's too general, if you replace 'liberal' with 'socialist' it's just what a right winger would say about socialism.

If you don't like the Oxford definition then take it up with them.

Where have I said you're a Stalinist? I've said that you seem to be defending (finding reasons for, explaining away) 20 million people dying under Stalinism.

 

[coley]

I'm not defending Stalinist violence by wanting to understand it, to place it into some context. If I was a Stalinist would I be using 'Stalinist' as a self-designation? Describing the so-called 'socialist' system of state ownership in the Soviet Union as Stalinism? Wouldn't I be a Communist? And the only proper Communist is one who adheres to Marxism-Leninism? Is the Stalinist conception of socialism the only one?

Of course violence has to be dealt with, its purpose, its problems discussed and decided upon. Do you think those who benefit the most from this current state of affairs will simply give it all away? They maintain armies and police forces, use their wealth to divide and turn people against one another.

Liberalism can include racism, yes, and historically with capitalist expansion can have no problem with mass murder too. And more recently where the two have come into imperialist conflict there has been all manner of horrific violence. Some examples may pose problems for you re liberalism. But you've personalised this, as in you identify as a liberal (some fluffy position of just being really nice and stuff) therefore I'm unwarranted in calling you a racist or a defender of mass murder. I'm not doing that. So looking back your whole purpose on this thread since then has been to portray me as a defender of Stalinist mass murder. It's a bit childish really, isn't it? Hurt feelings.

"Of course violence has to be dealt with, its purpose, its problems discussed and decided upon. Do you think those who benefit the most from this current state of affairs will simply give it all away? They maintain armies and police forces, use their wealth to divide and turn people against one another."

Could you expound on that? You feel violence has a place to play in the overthrow of the present system?

 

[seventh bullet]

Well I've said why I don't think what butchers said is a good definition - it's too general, if you replace 'liberal' with 'socialist' it's just what a right winger would say about socialism.

If you don't like the Oxford definition then take it up with them.

Where have I said you're a Stalinist? I've said that you seem to be defending (finding reasons for, explaining away) 20 million people dying under Stalinism.

This is could go on and on. I have already offered to explore it more, its history, but let's stick with the Ox def... How does it seem that I have defended Stalinist violence other than you wanting to portray me as an apologist out of some offence taken at fluffy and nice not being viewed as the sole aspects of liberalism? You haven't responded to any of my detailed posts.

 

[seventh bullet]

"Of course violence has to be dealt with, its purpose, its problems discussed and decided upon. Do you think those who benefit the most from this current state of affairs will simply give it all away? They maintain armies and police forces, use their wealth to divide and turn people against one another."

Could you expound on that? You feel violence has a place to play in the overthrow of the present system?

Yes.