Privileged people calling less privileged people "stupid" doesn't seem to be working...

[ItWillNeverWork]

Ah good, an interesting post.

Not disagreeing with the thrust of your analysis, but why would the reorganisation have to involve centralisation of power? I presume that, by that, you mean that monetary union needs the addition of fiscal union, so a single central power setting not just interest rates but also tax rates. A proper federalised state.

Could it not be argued that this is, in effect, what we already have, just without even the pretence of a democratic structure to govern it, hence the strong ruling over the weak?

It's an interesting point, given that my position over brexit was basically 'stay in but it needs radical change'.

I think the centralisation would come about naturally once you add in the fiscal union. Can you imagine the scenario whereby taxes collected in the UK would be used for economic stimulus is Greece? The right would be up in arms. Personally I wouldn't mind a jot if that happened, but politically it would not be sustainable

My guess is that at that point the EU would find itself at another juncture - either it reduces national parliaments to the equivalent of US state legislatures and introduces presidential elections, or it finds a constant thorn in its side from disgruntled nationalist-inclined domestic political parties. This is presuming reform is possible in the first place.

 

[Athos]

If people on the left wanting to leave the EU because they wanted nothing to do with the EU on moral grounds then they are not deluded, stupid, or racist. Provided they don't think things will be better outside.

Oh, so you've completely conceded that the only point you were making - that a vote for Brexit makes someone deluded, racist or stupid - was wrong?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

.

 

[Athos]

Perhaps a better question would be:

What the fuck does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Or even, why don't you start another thread to discuss this (admittedly interesting) subject?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Perhaps a better question would be:

What the fuck does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Or even, why don't you start another thread to discuss this (admittedly interesting) subject?

I'm quite enjoying the debate myself.

 

[Athos]

I'm quite enjoying the debate myself.

Would you enjoy it any less if it were in a thread of its own, so as not to distract and detract from this one?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Would you enjoy it any less if it were in a thread of its own, so as not to distract and detract from this one?

Not at all, your highness. This seems a perfect thread of choice, as it goes.

 

[B.I.G]

Oh, so you've completely conceded that the only point you were making - that a vote for Brexit makes someone deluded, racist or stupid - was wrong?

The odd exception. Sorry I cant wrap millions up without one or two escaping.

 

[danny la rouge]

The odd exception. Sorry I cant wrap millions up without one or two escaping.

This is what it comes down to: you, and other liberals like you, thinking that you can "wrap up millions". Thinking you've got them all figured out. One or two that don't fit the rule. But otherwise you can dismiss the lot. You understand them perfectly.

But what if you're wrong? And how do you think it sounds to the millions?

 

[cjay]

I have larger question about how the British left got away from anti-globalization or were they ever against it to begin with?

Back in the 90's, anti-globalization was a big issue for the left here in the US. There were big protests. At the time, the right here was pro-globalization, with the exception of the far right who were totally marginalized. Anti-globalization arguments were coming mostly from the left and had not been stigmatized like they are now. Bill Clinton ran on opposition to the NAFTA trade treaty in 1992, but then reversed his position a few years later.

Fast forward 20 years later, and the left is de facto in an alliance with neoliberal corporate globalists against a populist/nationalist trending right. I'm afraid that the younger generation of leadership on the left here is moving towards a totally identity politics focused vision that doesn't even pretend to oppose neoliberal economics. Hilary Clinton's comments about "breaking up the big banks won't end racism" were shocking and a reflection of how the center left now thinks.

What I'm seeing is that attitude is moving further on the left, especially among the younger crowd. It's clear we are moving towards a situation where criticizing big banks and neoliberal economics will be seen was some kind of dirty, possibly racist sentiment. Those who criticize neoliberal economics will be accused of being far right shills trying to take attention off the the real issues. That's essentially what happened with anti-globalization. That was a mainstream cause in the 90's and now if you say "globalism" around lefties, people will think you're some kind of closet racist. The neoliberals have managed to stigmatize opposition to them them.

How did this happen?

 

[eoin_k]

Perhaps if you call it globalisation rather than globalism people might be less likely to take you for a David Duke supporter.

 

[redsquirrel]

One of the issues is, whilst few would disagree with you about the starting point we are having this discussion in context.

Well first of all I don't agree with this comment, I think lots of people would disagree strongly with the starting point I proposed. Two days ago you had someone on this thread calling 50+% of the population of the UK idiots and millions of people racists, nonsense which the poster has repeated in the last 12 hours. And while B.I.G.'s post may be more blunt than some he's not alone, I hear such views more and more both on U75 and in general.

But regarding "solutions", well solutions to what end? Not only are the starting points for progressive neoliberalism antithetical to mine their desired ends points are too. And that's why I'm so critical of those who have signed up to progressive neoliberalism or argue "that we're all on the same side". We never were, and while the cracks may have been able to be papered over they are becoming ever more apparent. First do no harm.

 

[B.I.G]

This is what it comes down to: you, and other liberals like you, thinking that you can "wrap up millions". Thinking you've got them all figured out. One or two that don't fit the rule. But otherwise you can dismiss the lot. You understand them perfectly.

But what if you're wrong? And how do you think it sounds to the millions?

I knew it wouldnt be long before someone on urban dismissed me as a "liberal". Classic urban.

 

[Pickman's model]

I knew it wouldnt be long before someone on urban dismissed me as a "liberal". Classic urban.

You and littlebabyjesus

 

[danny la rouge]

I knew it wouldnt be long before someone on urban dismissed me as a "liberal". Classic urban.

So, millions of people are thick, uneducated and racist, but "liberal" is "dismissing" you? Maybe "thick and uneducated" is a bit dismissive?

As it happens, I was referring to the liberal establishment. People like you, but not just you. People who have been dismissing millions as thick, uneducated and racist. Columnists, TV personalities, certain politicians, members of civil society. People who are happy to assume and to write off. To "wrap up" millions.

 

[J Ed]

I have larger question about how the British left got away from anti-globalization or were they ever against it to begin with?

Back in the 90's, anti-globalization was a big issue for the left here in the US. There were big protests. At the time, the right here was pro-globalization, with the exception of the far right who were totally marginalized. Anti-globalization arguments were coming mostly from the left and had not been stigmatized like they are now. Bill Clinton ran on opposition to the NAFTA trade treaty in 1992, but then reversed his position a few years later.

Fast forward 20 years later, and the left is de facto in an alliance with neoliberal corporate globalists against a populist/nationalist trending right. I'm afraid that the younger generation of leadership on the left here is moving towards a totally identity politics focused vision that doesn't even pretend to oppose neoliberal economics. Hilary Clinton's comments about "breaking up the big banks won't end racism" were shocking and a reflection of how the center left now thinks.

What I'm seeing is that attitude is moving further on the left, especially among the younger crowd. It's clear we are moving towards a situation where criticizing big banks and neoliberal economics will be seen was some kind of dirty, possibly racist sentiment. Those who criticize neoliberal economics will be accused of being far right shills trying to take attention off the the real issues. That's essentially what happened with anti-globalization. That was a mainstream cause in the 90's and now if you say "globalism" around lefties, people will think you're some kind of closet racist. The neoliberals have managed to stigmatize opposition to them them.

How did this happen?

Some of this is quite confused and muddled, the Clintons were certainly never of the left or a part of the activist anti-globalisation left. The very superficial Bill Clinton (and then Hillary Clinton) opposition to NAFTA (and then the TPP) was not part of a broader opposition to globalisation. I do think that you have identified the same thing as I have though, that there has been a deliberate political entanglement of social liberalism with neoliberal economics, and that is being pushed very hard at the moment by both centre-right and centre-left. Nick Clegg's schtick at the moment is basically a wordy conflation of 'anti-banker' sentiment with xenophobia, it is risible. He and others like him are knowingly scoring a few points off the left while signposting people who are dissatisfied with neoliberalism towards the populist right.

All this being said, when you use the term 'globalism' I think that does set off alarm bells for people on the left, and not because they are supportive of globalisation. As far as I can tell Globalism and globalists are terms used mostly by the right, more often than not in ways that seem to be referring to a Jewish conspiracy rather than anything structural. So take Trump's final campaign video in which when he refers to globalists three pictures flash up of Yellen, Soros and Blankfein. This is the context that I expect to see the term 'globalist' in. Perhaps that is the problem you are running into.

 

[J Ed]

Interesting how these peak around the election

Google Trends

 

[cjay]

Some of this is quite confused and muddled, the Clintons were certainly never of the left or a part of the activist anti-globalisation left. The very superficial Bill Clinton (and then Hillary Clinton) opposition to NAFTA (and then the TPP) was not part of a broader opposition to globalisation. I do think that you have identified the same thing as I have though, that there has been a deliberate political entanglement of social liberalism with neoliberal economics, and that is being pushed very hard at the moment by both centre-right and centre-left. Nick Clegg's schtick at the moment is basically a wordy conflation of 'anti-banker' sentiment with xenophobia, it is risible. He and others like him are knowingly scoring a few points off the left while signposting people who are dissatisfied with neoliberalism towards the populist right.

All this being said, when you use the term 'globalism' I think that does set off alarm bells for people on the left, and not because they are supportive of globalisation. As far as I can tell Globalism and globalists are terms used mostly by the right, more often than not in ways that seem to be referring to a Jewish conspiracy rather than anything structural. So take Trump's final campaign video in which when he refers to globalists three pictures flash up of Yellen, Soros and Blankfein. This is the context that I expect to see the term 'globalist' in. Perhaps that is the problem you are running into.

You are making my point for me. It was not like this in the US two decades ago. "Anti-globalization" was a mainstream left cause for socialists, communist, anarchists and especially anti-fascists. That was the word for it. It's not a right wing word. Who do you think fucked shit up in Seattle at the WTO meeting? The Klu Klux Klan? It was anarchists, anti-racist punks and skinheads and environmentalist hippies. Literally it was the same people were engaging in anti-fascist direct actions around the same time that smashed up corporate property to protest, in their won words, "globalization." Not even "neoliberalism," just straight up globalization. And you better believe that the people pushing globalization were called, yes, "globalists."

If Bill Clinton, New Democrat poster boy, was against NAFTA in 1992, what do you think socialists thought about it? Globalization was the economic and foreign policy program of Reagan and Bush. Opposing it wasn't something that was controversial the left. Now you get accused of being a David Duke supporter.

I'm not even completely sure David Duke was against NAFTA at the time. He was certainly trying to pander to Reagan's ideological conservative base in the GOP that were very pro-globalization. Support for total free trade along with eliminating unions and the entire social welfare state was very widespread among far right crazies in that era. Extreme libertarian economic policies that include total free trade were and are popular among white nationalists, neo-nazis, "patriots," sovereign citizens, armed militias and people like that. They see any impediment to total free trade, even safety and health regulation of imported goods as a tax(aka theft) and not much different than communism. I know that sounds beyond ridiculous to y'all, but a wide spectrum of right wing Americans thinks like that.

 

[BigTom]

You are making my point for me. It was not like this in the US two decades ago. "Anti-globalization" was a mainstream left cause for socialists, communist, anarchists and especially anti-fascists. That was the word for it. It's not a right wing word. Who do you think fucked shit up in Seattle at the WTO meeting? The Klu Klux Klan? It was anarchists, anti-racist punks and skinheads and environmentalist hippies. Literally it was the same people were engaging in anti-fascist direct actions around the same time that smashed up corporate property to protest, in their won words, "globalization." Not even "neoliberalism," just straight up globalization. And you better believe that the people pushing globalization were called, yes, "globalists."

If Bill Clinton, New Democrat poster boy, was against NAFTA in 1992, what do you think socialists thought about it? Globalization was the economic and foreign policy program of Reagan and Bush. Opposing it wasn't something that was controversial the left. Now you get accused of being a David Duke supporter.

I'm not even completely sure David Duke was against NAFTA at the time. He was certainly trying to pander to Reagan's ideological conservative base in the GOP that were very pro-globalization. Support for total free trade along with eliminating unions and the entire social welfare state was very widespread among far right crazies in that era. Extreme libertarian economic policies that include total free trade were and are popular among white nationalists, neo-nazis, "patriots," sovereign citizens, armed militias and people like that. They see any impediment to total free trade, even safety and health regulation of imported goods as a tax(aka theft) and not much different than communism. I know that sounds beyond ridiculous to y'all, but a wide spectrum of right wing Americans thinks like that.

Both me and Bill Clinton attended the G8 (iirc?) thing in Birmingham in 1998. He was flown in by helicopter for the conference, I was at the Reclaim the Streets demo and walked there and back from my home (you must know this board has lots of posters who were heavily or loosely involved with the anti-gloablisation stuff in the uk, and the anti-roads movement it was born from, right?). Clinton was never part of the left as far as I was concerned, nor do I think many/any on the demo would have considered him to be so. Globalism/globalisation may be a US/UK thing, It's a long time ago but I don't remember referring to it as globalism, always globalisation. I guess we must have called the people globalists but tbh I can't remember but I can't think of any other term. Nonetheless I agree with J_ed eoin_k that globalism/globalist is more readily associated in my mind with the far-right. They are not accusing you of being far right, just suggesting that you might get a poor reception because of the image those words trigger rather than anything else.

 

[butchersapron]

The Europeans at the time often used alter-globalisation to describe their proposed solutions to globalisation. It was pro increasing globalisation, anti neoliberal forms of it.

edIt: and one of the reasons for this attempted differentiation was that euro-far right groups of the french new-right, third position, national anarchist types were trying to infiltrate the movements, believing that simple anti-globalisatin rhetoric that some used meant that their day had finally come, that the left now agreed with them and their regionalist, culturalist identarian agenda. If you go back and look at the ainfos posts from that time or the yahoo organising lists or similar you'l see that this was a real issue.

 

[emanymton]

I knew it wouldnt be long before someone on urban dismissed me as a "liberal". Classic urban.

Calling you a liberal is an insult to liberals.

 

[J Ed]

You are making my point for me. It was not like this in the US two decades ago. "Anti-globalization" was a mainstream left cause for socialists, communist, anarchists and especially anti-fascists. That was the word for it. It's not a right wing word. Who do you think fucked shit up in Seattle at the WTO meeting? The Klu Klux Klan? It was anarchists, anti-racist punks and skinheads and environmentalist hippies. Literally it was the same people were engaging in anti-fascist direct actions around the same time that smashed up corporate property to protest, in their won words, "globalization." Not even "neoliberalism," just straight up globalization. And you better believe that the people pushing globalization were called, yes, "globalists."

I don't really see how this has changed significantly, liberals then were actually in favour of even the things they specifically said they opposed while the actual left still wasn't. It's the same now, Clinton claimed to be against TPP but everyone knew she wasn't, while supporters of Sanders and everyone to their left are very much against the TPP and other similar trade agreements.

 

[danny la rouge]

We've had the "what does liberal mean" discussion lots of times, including several pages here: Are you a Marxist

 

[danny la rouge]

(That was for B.I.G ^ )

 

[cjay]

Both me and Bill Clinton attended the G8 (iirc?) thing in Birmingham in 1998. He was flown in by helicopter for the conference, I was at the Reclaim the Streets demo and walked there and back from my home (you must know this board has lots of posters who were heavily or loosely involved with the anti-gloablisation stuff in the uk, and the anti-roads movement it was born from, right?). Clinton was never part of the left as far as I was concerned, nor do I think many/any on the demo would have considered him to be so. Globalism/globalisation may be a US/UK thing, It's a long time ago but I don't remember referring to it as globalism, always globalisation. I guess we must have called the people globalists but tbh I can't remember but I can't think of any other term. Nonetheless I agree with J_ed eoin_k that globalism/globalist is more readily associated in my mind with the far-right. They are not accusing you of being far right, just suggesting that you might get a poor reception because of the image those words trigger rather than anything else.

And that's why the far right is surging now. They stole populist economics from us. When I was first involved in politics, the racist far right in the US were almost all Ayn Rand fanatics who would fly into a rage at the mention of "the working class." The kind of populist rhetoric behind Trump didn't exist with those people back then. They would have accused anyone talking about workers' interests or greedy corporations of being a communist.

There has been an incredible inversion between the right and left on economic issues in my lifetime. I thought people here might want to discuss this, but I was wrong. The Pavlovian response against the words I used tells me that this inversion process and the psychological taboos against challenging the ruling class are deeper than I realized.

 

[BigTom]

And that's why the far right is surging now. They stole populist economics from us. When I was first involved in politics, the racist far right in the US were almost all Ayn Rand fanatics who would fly into a rage at the mention of "the working class." The kind of populist rhetoric behind Trump didn't exist with those people back then. They would have accused anyone talking about workers' interests or greedy corporations of being a communist.

There has been an incredible inversion between the right and left on economic issues in my lifetime. I thought people here might want to discuss this, but I was wrong. The Pavlovian response against the words I used tells me that this inversion process and the psychological taboos against challenging the ruling class are deeper than I realized.

UKIP has moved like that but I think the far right in the UK has generally identified as working class and had these politics throughout my lifetime, so that is a difference between US and UK (although always about white working class obv). I think you are reading way to much into what is purely a language difference, and people trying to explain this difference, as you seemed to be unaware why some people in the uk might react with suspicion towards someone using those particular words. That doesn't in any way means that they are no longer anti-globalisation, or against the institutions such as EU, WTO, NAFTA, TPIP (I can't remember the acronym atm) etc. Obviously the anti-globalisation movement disappeared sometime around the mid-00s I think in the UK? Fed into/created Climate Camp I think and from there to Occupy possibly? I dunno what happened to the various movements in the US or Europe (except to the extent it was all interlinked). Many of on the left in the UK will have voted to leave the EU, or abstained from the vote, because they are anti-globalisation, and see the EU as one of the fundamental globalising forces. Neo-liberalism (or capitalism) is also an inseparable part of this, as a globalisation based on solidarity (or full communism) would be internationalism which would probably be welcomed (definitely welcomed). That's made me wonder if we called the people neo-liberals back then, I'm really not sure.

In terms of the movement of "the left", yes that's the same here - social democracy has been dropped for neo-liberalism and the nominally left party/parties have moved from social democratic positions to neo-liberal positions, but there are still social democrats in what is left of the labour movement and there are still revolutionary socialists. No doubt both have declined since the 90s but then the anti-cuts demo in 2011 pulled out half a million which was iirc the 3rd biggest demo in UK history, with a big direct action element as part of it, so it's not like it's completely gone and there's no opposition to austerity/neo-liberalism. Corbyn is the equivalent to Sanders (and Syriza, Podemos? not sure what else), but generally the labour and middle class left are fucking shit at any kind of economics/politics which will work to counter the rise of the populist right. Our two main communities have been largely destroyed - large workplaces are few and far between, which has undercut trade unions and the degregadation of social housing/secure contracts has made our local/physical communities more transient. The housing crisis has reached such a point in the UK that the moderate left are actually starting to address it. That may signal the start of a movement away from neo-liberal politics, or they may just destroy corbyn and continue along their path towards full working class traitorism (some would say the labour party did that a long time ago tbf).

 

[treelover]

No doubt both have declined since the 90s but then the anti-cuts demo in 2011 pulled out half a million which was iirc the 3rd biggest demo in UK history, with a big direct action element as part of it

Which while probably exciting for the largely middle class participants, (saw many of them disrobe from their riot outfits in trafalgar square), it probably severely blunted the message the mass rally was trying to engender.

 

[BigTom]

Which while probably exciting for the largely middle class participants, (saw many of them disrobe from their riot outfits in trafalgar square), it probably severely blunted the message the mass rally was trying to engender.

Whatever other criticisms there might be of ukuncut, they certainly had a popular / populist message, that resonated with many, many people. Imo the inaction of unions following the demo plus the mass arrest of ukuncut activists meant this was the high point of the movement rather than the springboard for wider action.

e2a: Trafalgar square stuff isn't what I was thinking of, as I was thinking of ukuncut action. I was arrested at f&m and never made it that late, as were many other ukuncut activists.

 

[redsquirrel]

Mike Davis (City of Quartz, Late Victorian Holocausts) piece on consequences of Trump's victory. Might have been posted on one of the Trump thread but I couldn't be bothered wading through crap to make sure.

(Am I going mad or didn't we use to have an 'Interesting Articles' Thread? I searched but couldn't seem to ind it)

 

[yield]

Mike Davis (City of Quartz, Late Victorian Holocausts) piece on consequences of Trump's victory. Might have been posted on one of the Trump thread but I couldn't be bothered wading through crap to make sure.

(Am I going mad or didn't we use to have an 'Interesting Articles' Thread? I searched but couldn't seem to ind it)

Would it be worth having an 'I just read an interesting article' thread?