PM Boris Johnson - monster thread for a monster twat

[coley]

Yes.

Fair enough, beheadings of the 1% ers? or would you prefer something more 'low key'

 

[seventh bullet]

Fair enough, beheadings of the 1% ers? or would you prefer something more 'low key'

Beheadings?

 

[coley]

Beheadings?

You know, get all those rich 1% ers out of their penthouses/mansions and detach their heads from their shoulders in front of the people, very popular in France once upon a time.

 

[seventh bullet]

The plebian way. What happened to the Communards?

You would protect your property from expropriation. Or stand behind others who would. There's going to be some conflict...

 

[two sheds]

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.

Well this one particularly, responding to Stalin and the 20 million:

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?

What's that but a justification? My original point was that I couldn't think of a convincing response to her statement about socialism and Russia. That really isn't a good one.

 

[two sheds]

"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?

Standing back from my 'discussion' with seventh bullet at the moment I do wonder whether the definition of 'liberal' on urban is 'doesn't believe in violent revolution'.

 

[coley]

The plebian way. What happened to the Communards?

You would protect your property from expropriation. Or stand behind others who would. There's going to be some conflict...

I'm all for a non violent political redistribution of wealth,you?

 

[coley]

Standing back from my 'discussion' with seventh bullet at the moment I do wonder whether the definition of 'liberal' on urban is 'doesn't believe in violent revolution'.

 

[seventh bullet]

Why is that a justification? Surely we can go beyond Stalin wasn't a very nice man. The point is that the problems of violence used by you and against you in the struggle for power will be faced by the non-Stalinist left. It's not a celebration of violence. Historically that struggle hasn't been a nice chat.

 

[seventh bullet]

Standing back from my 'discussion' with seventh bullet at the moment I do wonder whether the definition of 'liberal' on urban is 'doesn't believe in violent revolution'.

Liberals have never used violence against political threats to their dominance?

 

[two sheds]

Why is that a justification? Surely we can go beyond Stalin wasn't a very nice man. The point is that the problems of violence used by you and against you in the struggle for power will be faced by the non-Stalinist left. It's not a celebration of violence. Historically that struggle hasn't been a nice chat.

The problem I have with it is: if you're a socialist, then giving reasons why a previous socialist (or someone who describes themselves as a socialist, in this case Stalin) killed 20 million people in setting up a socialist state, then it suggests that you wouldn't be averse to a few million deaths in setting up your own version of socialism. That scares the shit out of people who aren't revolutionary socialists.

And these were after Stalin came to power weren't they? We're not talking about deaths during the revolution, this was specifically from inefficient distribution of resources (unless there was no way to avoid the deaths through environmentally caused famines), and killing people who disagreed with him.

Those are the two basic reasons that right wing people give for why socialism is so dangerous. Trying to justify or explain them without prefacing it by "yes they were horrific, of course I don't want anything like that" plays into their hands.

 

[two sheds]

Liberals have never used violence against political threats to their dominance?

Examples of liberals who have? This is what I've been trying to get at all along, really. Give me some examples and I can respond to it.

 

[8ball]

Examples of liberals who have?

Barack Obama.

 

[seventh bullet]

Saying that Stalinism wasn't a genuine attempt to establish an alternative to capitalism does also. That doesn't make me a Stalinist or an apologist to say the above.

 

[two sheds]

Barack Obama.

Yes fair play, although surely a neoliberal? I wouldn't have described someone who's been elected head of the US and from the Democratic party (further right wing than the tories) as a liberal.

 

[two sheds]

Saying that Stalinism wasn't a genuine attempt to establish an alternative to capitalism does also. That doesn't make me a Stalinist or an apologist to say the above.

does also what?

 

[seventh bullet]

Examples of liberals who have? This is what I've been trying to get at all along, really. Give me some examples and I can respond to it.

War against Communists or supporting those against Communists in the last century. By the world's leading liberal democratic power.

 

[8ball]

Yes fair play, although surely a neoliberal? I wouldn't have described someone who's been elected head of the US and from the Democratic party (further right wing than the tories) as a liberal.

'Liberal' has a wide semantic range.

 

[seventh bullet]

does also what?

That wasn't real socialism. It wasn't proper socialism. It was a fake socialism etc... The right will say it's avoidance.

 

[two sheds]

That wasn't real socialism. It wasn't proper socialism. It was a fake socialism etc... The right will say it's avoidance.

Indeed, that's why this thread has reminded me to describe myself as an environmentalist who wants to see resources shared fairly between people rather than appropriated by the rich and powerful if anybody asks in future.

 

[seventh bullet]

Yes fair play, although surely a neoliberal? I wouldn't have described someone who's been elected head of the US and from the Democratic party (further right wing than the tories) as a liberal.

Ah, liberals aren't really liberals when they use massive violence and terror or support those who do.

 

[seventh bullet]

Indeed, that's why this thread has reminded me to describe myself as an environmentalist who wants to see resources shared fairly between people rather than appropriated by the rich and powerful if anybody asks in future.

So how do you get the rich to share? Ask nicely?

 

[two sheds]

'Liberal' has a wide semantic range.

In which case it becomes somewhat meaningless. If we're describing people like Nixon and Johnson as liberals then no, I wouldn't count myself as *that sort* of liberal.

 

[two sheds]

Ah, liberals aren't really liberals when they use massive violence and terror or support those who do.

No, liberals aren't really liberals when they're really neoliberals.

Is anyone else getting bored with all this by the way? It's a detour and as I say I'd take it to the 'Liberals' thread but I'm not sure it would help.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Similar to a conversation I had recently with someone I'd just met. She asked me what I was politically and so I said 'socialist would be the nearest I think' and she said 'but I wouldn't want a society like Russia was'.

I didn't really get any further than 'Errrrrm'.

It's not difficult. A socialist believes in the social, rather than individual, ownership and control of the means of production. Within that broad definition you can be anything from Stalin to Gandhi. You don't need to answer for anything Stalin did unless you're a Stalinist yourself.

 

[two sheds]

So how do you get the rich to share? Ask nicely?

Dunno, but I think there's more chance of it happening through voting and community action than there is through violent revolution.

In the same vein I could ask how would you do it? Send people with fluffy dusters to take on tanks, missiles and machine guns?

 

[two sheds]

It's not difficult. A socialist believes in the social, rather than individual, ownership and control of the means of production. Within that broad definition you can be anything from Stalin to Gandhi. You don't need to answer for anything Stalin did unless you're a Stalinist yourself.

Fair play, but if you're talking to someone who's not particularly interested in politics (which she clearly isn't), how does she know that the *next* version of socialism isn't going to end up with a Stalin? It's a fair question.

 

[8ball]

No, liberals aren't really liberals when they're really neoliberals.

This is a fair point, but sadly is quite easily countered by a naive fool with a dictionary.

I'd count myself as a liberal under certain definitions of the word, and pretty much everyone posting on this site would count also for many definitions. In many respects the word has become useless.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Fair play, but if you're talking to someone who's not particularly interested in politics (which she clearly isn't), how does she know that the *next* version of socialism isn't going to end up with a Stalin? It's a fair question.

It was surely Russia's history that created Stalin though. Hundreds of years of absolute monarchy and the collapse of that empire, followed by a world war that exposed all of Europe to violence never previously witnessed. Those are the forces that would have shaped what was to come in Russia, not the idea of socialism.

 

[two sheds]

I'd count myself as a liberal under certain definitions of the word, and pretty much everyone posting on this site would count also for many definitions. In many respects the word has become useless.

Indeed - for me liberal includes being against sexism, homophobia, racism, ... That's why it confuses me somewhat that there's such a hatred of liberals on urban.