PM Boris Johnson - monster thread for a monster twat

[Spymaster]

I've always been a fan of Boris, and always will be. Makes me laugh when people on here cast up his shortcomings, I'd be very interested to see a detailed view of the critics 'shortcomings'.

I thought you had ditched the tories.

 

[two sheds]

I was just winding you up with the other stuff though. Throwing it in when you and two sheds try and tag-team me and expose the Stalinist within.

I thought we'd let all this go last night, but apparently not. Could you post an example of this 'tag-team' activity? My only recollection is that we both happened to ask the same (perfectly reasonable) question at the same time.

The only real response you've given to that particular question (that liberals "excel" at racism) has been "You are seriously saying that liberals can not be racist?". This is along the lines of a tory defending his claim that socialists excel at being anti-semite mass murderers who don't clean between their toes properly by saying: "You are seriously saying that socialists can not be anti-semite mass murderers who don't clean between their toes properly?"

Remember:

'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan.

 

[seventh bullet]

Eh?

 

[two sheds]

You're too young - there aren't proper lessons in logic from reputable sources any more

Monty Python: The Logician

 

[two sheds]

Now *that* I'd call an example of liberal racism.

 

[seventh bullet]

The Oxford English Dictionary definition of liberalism doesn't fit with it being an ideology compatible with mass murder and I am a defender of Stalinism. Then... Wanky middle class comedy?

 

[Pickman's model]

The Oxford English Dictionary definition of liberalism doesn't fit with it being an ideology compatible with mass murder and I am a defender of Stalinism. Then... Wanky middle class comedy?

often thought the most disappointing thing about stalinism was stalinists

 

[seventh bullet]

That's his view of me, it's not my own.

 

[Pickman's model]

Remember:

don't talk shit - what about e.g.

 

[two sheds]

The Oxford English Dictionary definition of liberalism doesn't fit with it being an ideology compatible with mass murder and I am a defender of Stalinism. Then... Wanky middle class comedy?

Oh there you go, bringing class back into it again

 

[seventh bullet]

I know, class doesn't matter at all.

 

[two sheds]

The megadeaths of Liberalism

Interesting thread, ta. Consistently includes neo-liberal governments, though, and throughout uses the political definition of a liberal:

(In a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform: a liberal democratic state

rather than the definition of a person with liberal ideals that I found last night.

Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas: liberal views towards divorce

So, bit of a dishonest argument to say 'liberals' when you mean 'liberal democratic states' (the thread includes colonial governments, US death squads and presidents, Nazi Germany, ...) and the people running those states aren't liberals at all.

The individual sense of the word I'd have thought covered most urban posters apart of course from the few illiberal ones.

So, if you accuse liberals of 'excelling' at racism, you can't complain when right wingers casually remark that socialists excel at anti-semitism. It's just the politics of insult, aims to confuse people, and pulls the discussion down to the lowest level.

 

[JimW]

Except that liberalism really was the driving ideology of enclosure, the slave trade and colonialism.

 

[seventh bullet]

Yep.

And pulling discussion down two sheds ? You spent most of yesterday portraying me as a Stalinist. You have still yet to demonstrate I am. All you have done so far is fling shit.

 

[butchersapron]

Interesting thread, ta. Consistently includes neo-liberal governments, though, and throughout uses the political definition of a liberal:



rather than the definition of a person with liberal ideals that I found last night.



So, bit of a dishonest argument to say 'liberals' when you mean 'liberal democratic states' (the thread includes colonial governments, US death squads and presidents, Nazi Germany, ...) and the people running those states aren't liberals at all.

The individual sense of the word I'd have thought covered most urban posters apart of course from the few illiberal ones.

So, if you accuse liberals of 'excelling' at racism, you can't complain when right wingers casually remark that socialists excel at anti-semitism. It's just the politics of insult, aims to confuse people, and pulls the discussion down to the lowest level.

Some sort of low level is also surely reached by using a floppy social definition (and basically just using that to mean 'nice') in response to what you know is the use of a political definition.

In reality, really existing liberal govt was formed on the basis of mass slavery, mass eviction of people from the land, mass deportations and mass violence - and those really existing liberal govts built up the corpus of legitimating myths for their actions that devolved in later days into the the concept of that floppy nice social liberalism that you're defending - around the time of WW1 when mass state intervention cleaved it off into some nice de-politicised sphere.

I've read your posts on this thread in astonishment.

 

[J Ed]

Except that liberalism really was the driving ideology of enclosure, the slave trade and colonialism.

Yes. I think part of the problem here is linguistic, in Britain there is a real blurring between the US and UK definitions of liberal. 'Very liberal' here could mean someone like Daniel Hannan whereas there it could be Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders, I think that liberals here use that blurred distinction to give themselves legitimacy.

 

[Pickman's model]

Except that liberalism really was the driving ideology of enclosure, the slave trade and colonialism.

i find it hard to believe that you discern liberalism under henry vii, henry viii, edward vi, mary i, queen elizabeth i, philips ii-iv of spain, james i, charles i, and so on. perhaps you could outline just who the liberal thinkers were in the period 1500-1650. and it's not john locke.

 

[JimW]

i find it hard to believe that you discern liberalism under henry vii, henry viii, edward vi, mary i, queen elizabeth i, philips ii-iv of spain, james i, charles i, and so on. perhaps you could outline just who the liberal thinkers were in the period 1500-1650. and it's not john locke.

Currently re-reading Hill's Puritanism and the English Revolution as it happens, where you can see the intellectual and social antecedents of what later became liberalism in the modern sense playing just the role I suggested. That they built on other existing social forces does nothing to refute that.

 

[two sheds]

Some sort of low level is also surely reached by using a floppy social definition (and basically just using that to mean 'nice') in response to what you know is the use of a political definition.

Well that's the point isn't it. The political definition is being used to cover the individual definition. And the floppy social definition isn't just 'nice' it covers values that people who I'd assume are on the left would also hold to. Whereas right wingers wouldn't.

In reality, really existing liberal govt was formed on the basis of mass slavery, mass eviction of people from the land, mass deportations and mass violence -

Wouldn't argue with that.

and those really existing liberal govts built up the corpus of legitimating myths for their actions that devolved in later days into the the concept of that floppy nice social liberalism that you're defending

the floppy nice social liberalism that I'm defending includes equal rights for women and ethnic minorities, gay rights and the like. I'm not defending liberal democratic states in any way. Just like when someone here defends socialists they're not defending Stalin or other people who have called themselves 'socialists'.

I've read your posts on this thread in astonishment.

I thought you might. I draw a distinction between being a liberal on an individual level and supporting the mass murder of liberal democratic states, while you don't seem to.

 

[Pickman's model]

Currently re-reading Hill's Puritanism and the English Revolution as it happens, where you can see the intellectual and social antecedents of what later became liberalism in the modern sense playing just the role I suggested. That they built on other existing social forces does nothing to refute that.

yeh well i don't know how you're suggesting liberalism the driving force behind the enclosures of the sixteenth century: perhaps you could elaborate. and i await with interest information on the spanish (and french) liberals of the period 1500-1650.

 

[Pickman's model]

Currently re-reading Hill's Puritanism and the English Revolution as it happens, where you can see the intellectual and social antecedents of what later became liberalism in the modern sense playing just the role I suggested. That they built on other existing social forces does nothing to refute that.

"what later became liberalism". what a pity. so liberalism to blame even when liberalism didn't in fact exist.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

I know you're not a Stalinist. I've read enough of your posts down the years for that to be plain.

 

[JimW]

"what later became liberalism". what a pity. so liberalism to blame even when liberalism didn't in fact exist.

It's quite straightforward, the incipient social and political ideologies that later became known as liberalism were a driving force in enclosure. The process shaped and defined what liberalism became. The word wasn't coined but the ideas and social forces were taking shape.

 

[two sheds]

Yep.

And pulling discussion down two sheds ? You spent most of yesterday portraying me as a Stalinist. You have still yet to demonstrate I am. All you have done so far is fling shit.

You keep saying this. It was not my intention and I don't think I actually did.

What I am saying is that, if someone criticizes socialism because of what happened in Russia then giving them reasons that Stalin acted like he did looks like you're defending what he did.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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".

People who would describe their own politics as "liberal", very often do excel at being racist. Many who could be simplistically described as "politically-correct" are actually thoroughgoing racists. Many of these people could also simplistically be described as bourgeois. None of this is some kind of new social analysis, it's old-fashioned "dig a moat, and pull up the drawbridge" behaviour from a class with more, against a class with less. Some of the bourgeoisie are dedicated liberal anti-racists, but where does that anti-racism tend to stem from? It's still true to say that for many, their anti-racism stems from political ideas, not from direct experience. Those more fortunate will always "other" the less fortunate under capitalism.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's quite straightforward, the incipient social and political ideologies that later became known as liberalism were a driving force in enclosure. The process shaped and defined what liberalism became. The word wasn't coined but the ideas and social forces were taking shape.

EITHER liberalism existed and was a motivating - a driving - force behind enclosures and the slave trade. OR it didn't. and i await with great interest your proof that liberalism as a distinctive and recognisable ideology existed in the first half of the sixteenth century in england. when you say that "the ideas ... were taking shape" i am not filled with confidence in your ability to substantiate your claim.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

To be fair to the slaphead fuckwit, all eugenics is "progressive" insofar as it attempts to progress people from one state to another.
Not that I expect slaphead is making that distinction.

 

[butchersapron]

Well that's the point isn't it. The political definition is being used to cover the individual definition. And the floppy social definition isn't just 'nice' it covers values that people who I'd assume are on the left would also hold to. Whereas right wingers wouldn't.

What i saw was you challenging seventh bullets posts about liberals - a post that only mad proper sense if taken as politically liberal - by running with it as if i meant socially liberal. I'd argue that there is a great deal of covert or unconscious unspoken racism among many politically and socially liberal people anyway - for example, i believe that the whole 'chav' thing contained a whole load of racial fears on the part of middle class white people, fears about race-mixing and so on.

the floppy nice social liberalism that I'm defending includes equal rights for women and ethnic minorities, gay rights and the like. I'm not defending liberal democratic states in any way. Just like when someone here defends socialists they're not defending Stalin or other people who have called themselves 'socialists'.

No it doesn't - these are political not social concepts and rights, and they were won by the left, often against liberals. And such was the margin of victory that modern day liberals (and most of the conservative right) today claim both them and the victory as their own.

I thought you might. I draw a distinction between being a liberal on an individual level and supporting the mass murder of liberal democratic states, while you don't seem to.

The things above were not just the doings of liberal democratic states, they were also the doings of the inventors of the liberal tradition - actively playing a role in enlcosures and slavery and so on, while developing the theories and concepts that allowed a defence of these actions and intentions. For example, in a very real sense, liberalism invented racism in during the period of the mass Atlantic slave trade.

 

[JimW]

EITHER liberalism existed and was a motivating - a driving - force behind enclosures and the slave trade. OR it didn't. and i await with great interest your proof that liberalism as a distinctive and recognisable ideology existed in the first half of the sixteenth century in england.

Your either or is bollocks hung on a label.

 

[two sheds]

Yes. I think part of the problem here is linguistic, in Britain there is a real blurring between the US and UK definitions of liberal. 'Very liberal' here could mean someone like Daniel Hannan whereas there it could be Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders, I think that liberals here use that blurred distinction to give themselves legitimacy.

I don't know anything about Daniel Hannan apart from him being a Conservative Euro MP. I wouldn't have thought he'd Hard to fit him as a liberal, though. More of a libertarian.

The US type definition, so including Bernie Sanders, is the one I'd thought as being general in the UK too before coming to urban.