Ukip - why are they gaining support?

[coley]

In actual fact, in situations of crisis you always find examples of both altruism and the opposite.

You certainly do, couldn't agree more, but which one usually triumphs?

 

[butchersapron]

Remained until 1977.

 

[butchersapron]

Even so, I'm sure they never referred to the system as communism.

In my experience people who grew up in the USSR call it socialism.

Of course, you were right all along! As ever.

 

[brogdale]

I'm just saying that despite what you say (which I'm not disputing), I've never come across evidence that they actually claimed to be implementing communism. Although, thinking about it, I do seem to remember that in the Brezhnev era they claimed that communism was close to becoming reality. Or summat like that. I'm not sure how far they really believed it, however.

I've honestly never heard an ex-Soviet say that what they lived under was communism. Or if they do, they simply mean Communist rule.

In fact it seems that most people, whether they lived under it or not, conflate communism with Communist rule.

I think you might be (mis)remembering Khrushchev's 1961 promise of communism in 20 years, ie. by 1980.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

In the constitution of I think either 36 or 37. Around then anyway.

The 1936 constitution doesn't mention communism once but refers to the USSR as 'a socialist state of workers and peasants'. In the Revolution Betrayed Trotsky quotes Stalin in 1936 saying “That social organization which we have created may be called a Soviet socialist organization, still not wholly completed, but at root a socialist organization of society.” Given that in Marxist orthodoxy communism is generally interpreted as coming about only after the withering away of the State it's not surprising that the term was avoided as a descriptive in official Soviet propaganda.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Don't be simple, you can be better than that, you have enough for a meal, do you share that meal amongst your family or with others, altruism and fairness works well when their is enough to go around, but the first sniff of 'shortage' and its every bugger for themselves, remember the fuel shortage a couple of years back and the scenes at the forecourts? Now,imagine if there was going to be an imminent and long term food shortage?

That's human nature.

So in some contexts it's "human nature" to be altruistic and fair, to display solidarity and in other contexts it's "human nature" to be defensive and selfish?

That being the case you aren't describing "human nature" at all. For it to be an essential "human nature" to behave in these ways, rather than just human behaviour in particular circumstances, it would have to hold true for all situations, to be a universal rationality.

 

[brogdale]

The 1936 constitution doesn't mention communism once but refers to the USSR as 'a socialist state of workers and peasants'. In the Revolution Betrayed Trotsky quotes Stalin in 1936 saying “That social organization which we have created may be called a Soviet socialist organization, still not wholly completed, but at root a socialist organization of society.” Given that in Marxist orthodoxy communism is generally interpreted as coming about only after the withering away of the State it's not surprising that the term was avoided as a descriptive in official Soviet propaganda.

Avoided maybe, but actually promised by Khruschev at a time when the dictatorship of the bureaucracy faced the split with the Chinese and other regimes.

 

[coley]

So in some contexts it's "human nature" to be altruistic and fair, to display solidarity and in other contexts it's "human nature" to be defensive and selfish?

That being the case you aren't describing "human nature" at all. For it to be an essential "human nature" to behave in these ways, rather than just human behaviour in particular circumstances, it would have to hold true for all situations, to be a universal rationality.

Nice argument, though I don't think it would work when the last ten people are down to the last tin of beans,

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Avoided maybe, but actually promised by Khruschev at a time when the dictatorship of the bureaucracy faced the split with the Chinese and other regimes.

Promised for the future. Never to describe the present.

 

[Lo Siento.]

If there is a human nature it is contradictory and basically self-seeking. Altruism is another form of self-preservation.

Both capitalism and communism are in line with human nature. Fascism is at one with a human being's basest instincts, which can be expressed, often in hidden form, under other political and social systems.

Better off admitting to ourselves that "human nature" is a pointless concept, because humans don't exist in a vacuum, making rational choices in perfect historical circumstances, but exist in actual historical circumstances. There's no nature and nurture, they are both present in every decision.

(It has a lot of ideological uses though, mostly not good ones!)

 

[Lo Siento.]

Nice argument, though I don't think it would work when the last ten people are down to the last tin of beans,

If it really were genuinely the last tin of beans, of the last 10 people, at least a few of the 10 would probably prefer not to prolong their lives any longer than necessary, some would probably prefer a quick suicide to a slow starvation, others might be hopeful that the last tin of beans could sustain them until some unforeseen solution presented them with more food, still others might believe that they might be saved by consuming the tin of beans but would prefer not to deprive someone else of them, they might devise a democratic or arbitrary means of allocating the beans between them (they've been socialised as peaceful democrats after all), they might share the meagre ration of beans between them out of fairness or mutual goodwill (who knows what they've gone through to get to this point).

Sure one or other of them might decide to murder the rest to secure another day of strength, but it'd be pretty down the list of likely outcomes IMO.

In any case, all of the above would be perfectly rational, and perfectly in line with actual human behaviour.

 

[brogdale]

Promised for the future. Never to describe the present.

Yep, with the supreme irony that the totalitarian dictatorship of the bureaucratic class over the proletariat was undertaken by a party calling itself communist.

 

[brogdale]

Not ironic in the slightest. Not to a Marxist anyway.

Nope, you've lost me there.

 

[seventh bullet]

No, I think the politbureau's dominant faction and their ideologists did claim communism was close at hand in the 1970s. I might be wrong though. I'm too lazy to look it up these days.

Officially, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' ended in the 1930s with the approach of socialism. In the 1950s and early 60s Khrushchev talked about full communism being approached sometime in the near future, but Brezhnev wasn't so daft and in 1967 he mentioned Soviet society entering a stage of mature or 'developed socialism.'

 

[coley]

If it really were genuinely the last tin of beans, of the last 10 people, at least a few of the 10 would probably prefer not to prolong their lives any longer than necessary, some would probably prefer a quick suicide to a slow starvation, others might be hopeful that the last tin of beans could sustain them until some unforeseen solution presented them with more food, still others might believe that they might be saved by consuming the tin of beans but would prefer not to deprive someone else of them, they might devise a democratic or arbitrary means of allocating the beans between them (they've been socialised as peaceful democrats after all), they might share the meagre ration of beans between them out of fairness or mutual goodwill (who knows what they've gone through to get to this point).

Sure one or other of them might decide to murder the rest to secure another day of strength, but it'd be pretty down the list of likely outcomes IMO.

In any case, all of the above would be perfectly rational, and perfectly in line with actual human behaviour.

I doubt anyone making it through to the last ten would be considering suicide, they would all be considering the best way to secure that last tin of beans, and I would think any notions of civilisation,fair play and democracy would have also been discarded to reach this point, in short, these last ten will probably be a right bunch of twats.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I doubt anyone making it through to the last ten would be considering suicide, they would all be considering the best way to secure that last tin of beans, and I would think any notions of civilisation,fair play and democracy would have also been discarded to reach this point, in short, these last ten will probably be a right bunch of twats.

I don't think even you're convinced by this answer. Firstly, there's no guarantee that the last 10 people on Earth aren't (a) just there by dumb luck (b) good at co-operating (c) great at hiding, you're making a great assumption that the last 10 are the most ruthless, and again, it's a variable that has nothing to do with human nature.

And... all of that is irrelevant. It doesn't even matter whether my outcomes are any more or less likely than yours. We can all recognise that the other options are perfectly rational for lots of humans, that they would be the "natural" (shall we say spontaneous instead?) choice of lots of humans. Survive as the last human being alive, having murdered the other 9 for an extra day or so of life? Would that really be your choice?

 

[thedockerslad]

It was hardly "defensive" to point out you were talking shite/had drawn shite inferences.

Then why post in the politics forum, ennui?

1. No I recognise a defensive post when I see one. That's ok I was starting to like you for it.

2. Because I can and because it seems to me that too many people on here are still enamoured by party politics.

 

[Gingerman]

They've got a zombie for a leader

 

[youngian]

County Clare born EU immigrant Des lynham endorses UKIP-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/10/des-lynam-endorses-ukip-song?commentpage=3

Has he lost his fucking marbles?

 

[Quartz]

County Clare born EU immigrant Des lynham endorses UKIP-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/10/des-lynam-endorses-ukip-song?commentpage=3

Has he lost his fucking marbles?

Perhaps he wants Ireland back in the UK?

 

[butchersapron]

State teat for a few million a year in work, now how much of his pension do hard-working crowded out families pay?

 

[butchersapron]

Perhaps he wants Ireland back in the UK?

What an odd thing to say. Why did you say it?

 

[coley]

I don't think even you're convinced by this answer. Firstly, there's no guarantee that the last 10 people on Earth aren't (a) just there by dumb luck (b) good at co-operating (c) great at hiding, you're making a great assumption that the last 10 are the most ruthless, and again, it's a variable that has nothing to do with human nature.

And... all of that is irrelevant. It doesn't even matter whether my outcomes are any more or less likely than yours. We can all recognise that the other options are perfectly rational for lots of humans, that they would be the "natural" (shall we say spontaneous instead?) choice of lots of humans. Survive as the last human being alive, having murdered the other 9 for an extra day or so of life? Would that really be your choice?

No.

 

[brogdale]

Falange is positioning like mad this am...

Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, has also been doing the rounds at Millbank this morning. He suggested that there should be a referendum on the EU before 2015 because, even if legislation for a post-2015 referendum were passed before the general election, that would not be binding on a future government.

They cannot bind the next parliament, that isn’t constitutional law in this country. Somebody else might win the election so [a referendum bill is] really meaningless electorally and it’s just a gesture and it shows how scared they really are. Anyway, I don’t want to wait until the end of 2017 to have a referendum. That is four and half years away. In that time goodness knows how much legislation will have been passed and goodness knows how many people will have come here from Romania and Bulgaria.​

This seems to be a shift in Farage's position. Now he is saying a referendum bill for a referendum after 2015 would be "meaningless". In the past (for example, in his speech to the Ukip conference) he has suggested it would have some merit.
He also reiterated his suggestion that Ukip could form a pact with the Conservatives if the Conservatives were to get rid of David Cameron.

I’ve said all the way through that if someone like a Boris [Johnson] or a Michael Gove was leading the Conservative party we’d certainly be prepared to have a conversation ...
The law now allows one candidate to have the logo of more than one party [on a ballot paper], so legally if someone wanted to stand as a Tory-Ukip candidate or even a Labour-UKIP candidate that would be allowed under electoral law. If Mr Bone’s [Conservative MP Peter Bone] association came to us and said they wanted to do this I would then put it to my association in Wellingborough and we’d go from there.​

The Tory MP Nadine Dorries also floated the idea of having candidates stand on a joint Conservative-Ukip ticket in an article in yesterday's Sun.
I've taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.

He must be enjoying himself as the tories go for each others' throats, especially with Rifkind saying things like this:-

"[Tabling the amendment] is not just foolish, it is quite contrary to all the political instincts of a responsible political party that wants to hold and retain power after the next general election."​

​

​

 

[butchersapron]

Gove totally did what Farage demanded, no wonder he's laughing up his sleeve.

 

[brogdale]

Gove totally did what Farage demanded, no wonder he's laughing up his sleeve.

Well, there has to be 'personal chemistry' for a coalition to work.

 

[butchersapron]

That was great politics from Farage to pick Gove to be his catspaw - someone just vain enough to think both that Farage was serious about working with him and that he himself would seriously either make or be a good tory leader/PM, as well as being stupid enough not to realise that his public image is of a total incompetent clown and so could only damage the party to UKIPs benefit.

 

[brogdale]

That was great politics from Farage to pick Gove to be his catspaw - someone just vain enough to think both that Farage was serious about working with him and that he himself would seriously either make or be a good tory leader/PM, as well as being stupid enough not to realise that his public image is of a total incompetent clown and so could only damage the party to UKIPs benefit.

Interestingly, Crick today takes a different, though not un-related, line on the relationship that goes back some way...

My old friend Tom Fairbrother has drawn my attention to a passage in Nigel Farage’s memoirs, Fighting Bull, in which the Ukip leader expresses his gratitute to Michael Gove.
Mr Gove is one of the senior Tories Nigel Farage always says he could do business with (in contrast to David Cameron).
It all dates back to 1999 when Ukip were contesting the European elections. Farage was in dispute with The Times newspaper over an article which claimed that Ukip and Farage had links with the BNP.
Farage relates: “I did something which I have never done before, something which was against my nature. I called the famous libel solicitors Carter-Ruck and appealed for the protection of the law against allegations without substance.
“Even as we celebrated our election victory, Carter-Ruck were locked in a battle with Rupert Murdoch and News International which could easily have escalated into a bloody – and bloody ruinous – war.”
Farage continues: “It was Michael Gove, a Times columnist who has since become a Tory MP, who stepped between these two pawing and snorting herd-bulls and insisted that his newspaper end the deadlock. I owe Michael one for that. An apology was duly printed (at the bottom of page two) and the whole business closed.”
So if, sometime towards the end of this decade, Michael Gove becomes leader of the Conservative Party, and we then suddenly see an electoral pact between the Tories and Ukip, we will all know why.
Just Mr Farage settling an old debt.
http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-c...-said-of-gove-i-owe-michael-one-for-that/2506

 

[William of Walworth]

Surely I'm not alone in finding the utter obsession with Europe by the Tories and UKIP totally insane?

 

[brogdale]

Surely I'm not alone in finding the utter obsession with Europe by the Tories and UKIP totally insane?

Not by their logic, though; its all about removing the social chapter etc. that restricts the ability of capital to exploit.