Steve Bannon

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Removed User 08 Nov 2018

Steve Bannon is attending a conference next Wednesday in Embra. It has been suggested that a demonstration is held to protest at his obnoxious philosophy.

I'm never sure about these things. Are they just virtue signalling and do they make the protesters look weak, a small minority standing outside in the rain while the powerful man dispenses pearls of "wisdom", inside a warm and dry venue

Also, can anyone send me a link to the photo of Bannon's face carved into a lump of corned beef?

3
Pan Ron 08 Nov 2018
In reply to Removed User:

Don't really know much about him to be honest.  I "know" he's a bad man because thats what I am repeatedly told in the media and by protestors.  Pretty hard to avoid that.  

But reading Wikipedia he comes across as a run-of-the-mill right winger who has earned loads of cash in the media.  Other than running a right-wing news site and helping Trump to victory, what is so evil about him?  That alone?

10
 MG 08 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

Read some more - you'll probably love him. 

1
Pan Ron 08 Nov 2018
In reply to MG:

Are you carefully avoiding saying things that probably aren't true?

1
 Rob Exile Ward 08 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

He's an inadequate, misogynist and none too bright failure on many levels who EVEN F*CKING TRUMP recognised was incompetent.

Other than that, interesting bloke. Not. Go down your local 'Spoons and there must be at least half a dozen like him every evening who didn't get quite so 'lucky'. 

5
Lusk 08 Nov 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Other than that, interesting bloke. Not. Go down your local 'Spoons and there must be at least half a dozen like him every evening who didn't get quite so 'lucky'. 

Wow! What outstanding snobbery.

12
 wbo 08 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron: you really don't know that much? I find that a little hard to believe.   He is a rather extreme right winger with strong hints of racial superiority who has done politically well in the US, and looking to enlarge worldwide populism is attaching himself to varioyv hard right movements in Europe

 

2
 Rob Exile Ward 08 Nov 2018
In reply to Lusk:

Whatever!

3
 colinakmc 08 Nov 2018
In reply to Removed User:

He was also ( before he was dropped from the Trumpettes) a vigorous proponent of an isolationist American foreign policy. So he needs to be encouraged to f*** off back under his stone.

1
Pan Ron 08 Nov 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> He's an inadequate, misogynist and none too bright failure on many levels who EVEN F*CKING TRUMP recognised was incompetent.

Everything in that statement is highly debatable.

But since you and MG are so convinced, I plugged in a Google search for 'Steve Bannon' and 'misogyny'.

The first hit is an Independent article headed "Steve Bannon's history of sexist, homophobic and xenophobic comments". I figured that meant you are right after all...

...until I made the mistake of reading the article. Gosh. Talk about click-bait journalism. If that warrants the headline, and lets face it, most people will take their opinion from a headline like that and read no further, is anyone surprised that right wing voters have no problem saying f*ck off to the democrats and sticking with Trump? 

I see more bigotry from SJWs. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/steve-bannon-...

 

10
In reply to Pan Ron:

This will open your eyes. It’s an account of how a military programme was exploited by Bannon and turned on the American people, corrupting American citizens and growing the Alt-Right. “People who were vulnerable to disinformation were profiled and targeted using the same kinds of techniques and tactics the military would use against ISIS.”

youtube.com/watch?v=o_MzwDO0FB8&

Pan Ron 08 Nov 2018
In reply to wbo:

> you really don't know that much? I find that a little hard to believe.   

You're right. I know a fair bit about him based on headlines. He's up there with Mussolini and Hitler before they started killing people apparently.

Thing is, given the Left's own scepticism of their own bigotry, and given their claims that the impact of SJW factions is just overblown hype, why not apply that same critical eye to reporting of the Right?

I've just read my 4th shock horror article on Bannon, and short of him mingling with a crowd of Le Pen supporters, the descriptions of him sound pretty mundane.

Yes. Hes right wing, blunt, abrasive, and thinks progressive ideals are horse-shit.  Hed happily halt immigration and wants no more foreign military interventions. That has people running for their safe spaces as if jackbooted troops are storming the border. 

11
Pan Ron 08 Nov 2018
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

I'm really not that fussed by the Cambridge Analytics story.  Where laws are broken then go ahead and charge. But in terms of people making their lives available on Facebook, an extremely useful free service that remains so because it markets that information you provide, being victims? It really doesn't register for me as some atrocious act.

12
In reply to Pan Ron:

I think how millions of people were manipulated and individually targeted with lies without their knowledge or consent to further an extremely right wing agenda is fairly unprecedented historically. Whether technically any laws were broken is inconsequential as the world has never been in such a situation in the past so the laws don't exist yet!

2
 Yanis Nayu 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

The problem with FB ads and targetted messaging is that it doesn’t allow for the counter point.  One side can’t see what the other is claiming/saying/promising and provide a rebuttal. It allows lies and falsehoods to promulgate and take root. 

 MonkeyPuzzle 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

Maybe read some better articles and do some actual research of your own. Aren't you supposed to be an academic? "I googled him and read a clickbaity article, and it's just those SJWs again". The Independent? Nothing of worth has been written for the Independent in about six or seven years.

2
Pan Ron 09 Nov 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

C'mon then, provide some links. For someone who is compared to the anti-christ, even left wing sources can't provide much other than gossip and innuendo to back up the claim.

I'm not claiming he's not what the evidence shows him to be. I'm just not seeing evidence that backs up the hyperbole.  So I'm reluctant to parrot the demonization. Its not like I've got any skin in the game so perfectly happy to change my opinion on him - it shouldn't be this difficult to produce a smoking gun.

Unless this is all some moral panic whipped up by those who see anyone right wing as evil.

6
 MonkeyPuzzle 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

First, no one is saying anti-christ apart from you, so don't hoist your strawmen on others. Bannon is a rabble-rousing anti-left/anti-liberal zealot who doesn't seem to care about any amount of collateral damage, long or short term, of any degree, caused in destroying his political opponents. Happy to accept the support of white supremacists, incels or whoever to bolster his cause and to hell if in doing so emboldens them to the detriment of society.

A good summary: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-radical-anti-conse... 

1
 Postmanpat 09 Nov 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

youtube.com/watch?v=TGJZQPARAIc&

This interview of Bannon by Emily Maitlis is worth a watch if only for the stunned mullet look on Emily's face as she utterly fails to question what he says, preferring to to stick to the preprogrammed "yere, yere, yere, but your a nasty racist fascist blah blah aren't you?" approach. It's up there with the Cathy Newman/Jordan Peterson car crash.

 The liberal left does itself no favours by sticking to simple stereotypes of such people instead of addressing what they actually say.

2
 Coel Hellier 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> He's an inadequate, misogynist and none too bright failure ...

If he is the election strategist who managed to get the worst candidate in history elected, he can't be a complete failure! 

Pan Ron 09 Nov 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

All you have written can equally apply to run-of-the-mill left-wing journalists and pressure-groups; they stay silent on the excesses of the far-left, seem content for the entire right to be demonised (typically portrayed as greedy, selfish, bigoted and cruel) and to cease to exist, and are happy to seize on any event, and push any available buttons, to blame right-wing malevolent forces (or simply some combination of "old", "white" and "men") for human suffering.

The guy is a political/media operator.  The fact that he attracts protestors opposed to his "obnoxious philosophy" for merely taking part in a conference (presenting what half the electorate clearly consider to be an important viewpoint or counterpoint) is crazy.  Presumably these protestors feel he shouldn't even be allowedto speak. In which case, who are the real zealots?  Don't you think this is where the strawmen is?  That Breitbart readers are a "rabble", that he causes "collateral damage", is in with "white supremacists" and "incels", that he's a "detriment to society"?  Perhaps he's just a right winger with a platform, and this is something we should not just accept but encourage in the spirit of open dialogue? 

Protesting against him is as logical as conservatives protesting against Michael Moore because he creates anti-right-wing films, or Sacha Baron-Cohens ridicule of the Right.  "Sicko" or "Michael Moore in Trumpland" are no more or less valid than Bannon's criticisms of the Occupy movement.  

The Atlantic piece, like many others, is interesting in that it seems to equate anti-leftism with being anti-minorities and rights.  I certainly used to believe that; that the left, and not the right, stood up for rights and freedoms.  But this simply isn't true.  At least not today. Being maximally in favour of universalist individual freedoms and access might, in today's political climate, actually require you to be more right-wing than left-wing.

And I don't see how you can accuse him of being "anti-liberal" when the same Atlantic article makes the case that he is profoundly "anti-conservative" and an opponent of the Tea-Party.

Post edited at 12:00
4
 MG 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

You see?  I knew he'd be right up your street!

2
 jkarran 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Presumably these protestors feel he shouldn't even be allowedto speak. In which case, who are the real zealots?

Protesting someone you disagree with or consider a threat does not automatically imply a desire to silence them, just that their ideas not be left to pass unchallenged. What an odd assumption.

> At least not today. Being maximally in favour of universalist individual freedoms and access might, in today's political climate, actually require you to be more right-wing than left-wing.

Might? Does, surely. The problem is that the desire for total personal freedom is accompanied by drive to also remove protections from the weak in society. The idea we're not free if we can't indulge our prejudices, abuse those different from us has moved from the fringes toward the mainstream-right in recent years thanks in large part to malignant men like Banon. Maximum freedom for all in a society does not occur where all restrictions are removed allowing the powerful or the mob to dominate but where appropriate legal limits on our actions and our words are carefully applied and continually reviewed.

jk

2
 Ramblin dave 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

 

> Other than running a right-wing news site

Which openly embraced the white supremacist and white-nationalist alt-right under Bannon's leadership, according to noted left-wing bigot *checks notes* Ben Shapiro.

> and helping Trump to victory

And explicitly supporting and encouraging (among others) the French Front National, Fidesz in Hungary, AfD in Germany, the Sweden Democrats in Sweden, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, the BNP and EDL in the UK (before shifting his support to UKIP) and the Identitarian Movement across Europe.

> what is so evil about him?

He either believes in white nationalism and white supremacism himself, or he's happy to help people who do to succeed for personal gain. In neither case is he someone who we should be giving the time of day to.

1
 Postmanpat 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Ramblin dave:

  This article, from the Washington post of all places, offers a more nuanced view.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/stephen-bannons-words-and-actions-d...

In particular " Bannon is intelligent and broadly read, and has a command of U.S. history. I’ve waded through his many movies and speeches, and in these, he does not come across as a racist or white supremacist, as some people have charged. But he is an unusual conservative. We have gotten used to conservatives who are really economic libertarians, but Bannon represents an older school of European thought that is distrustful of free markets, determined to preserve traditional culture and religion, and unabashedly celebrates nationalism and martial values."

  Aside from his views on racism and so forth (whatever they actually are), it is simplistic to regard him as "right wing". His economic nationalism: support for protectionism and trade tariffs, Keynsian infrastructure spending etc, puts him much more in the left wing tradition. Indeed, this article appears to to regard him as nostalgic for the collectivist era of the 1930s-50s as opposed to the individualism of the post '60s era.

  Before the usual suspects start, this doesn't make me a fan. I just think that some of his ideas warrant more than the Maitlis "whatever, but you're a racist" response. For example, what should the West do with the rules based economic system when major players such as China and Russia ignore or exploit the rules?

 neilh 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

Spot on .

Whilst I am no fan, to portray Bannon as unintelligent/ thick is just well silly, you only have to read about his career to understand that.

He is like alot of these people capable of grasping power and ideas, but then when faced with day to day decision making falls flat on his face.Which is a reason why he left the Trump administration as he could not hack it.

Post edited at 12:46
Pan Ron 09 Nov 2018
In reply to MG:

> You see?  I knew he'd be right up your street!

And it took no time at all for that old trope to come out; arguing against inaccuracies and overblown claims hurled at an individual = supporting the individual's views.

What has been revelatory to me since stepping back from the Left has been an understanding for why the Left is both hated and continues to fail electorally.  

I previously could not comprehend it.  Why so many people appeared to vote against their best interests.  Why a whole political movement (the Right) undermined what was intrinsically good (the Left).  

Turns out the left wants enemies and stops at nothing to find them, even among its own (in the 70s, 50s and probably every other decade the official term was "purges" I think).

2
Pan Ron 09 Nov 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Protesting someone you disagree with or consider a threat does not automatically imply a desire to silence them, just that their ideas not be left to pass unchallenged. What an odd assumption.

The best I can do on my lunch breaks are google searches, but pulling up "Bannon" and "protestors", it seems universal that the protestors themselves state they are there because they are angry he is allowed to speak. 

So not an odd assumption, or even an assumption. 

> Might? Does, surely. The problem is that the desire for total personal freedom is accompanied by drive to also remove protections from the weak in society.

This is the absolute crux of the issue. 

The right argues that the only fair way to provide rights is to consider them in the context of the smallest minority that exists.  The individual.

The left argues instead for arbitrary groupings, scored by a subjective measure of suffering. 

Ignoring that I find the right's viewpoint more compelling than the left's, neither side is mutually exclusive from encouraging or diminishing all the societal ills and prejudices you mention.  You can legislate just as easily against discrimination from a right standpoint as you can a left one. 

 

4
 MG 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> And it took no time at all for that old trope to come out; arguing against inaccuracies and overblown claims hurled at an individual = supporting the individual's views.

Yes, but you lump everyone to the left of, well Baanon, together as "The Left" and write reams and reams of overblown inaccurate text criticising them, while defending with similarly long tracts every loud mouth populist on the right.  It's pretty clear where your sympathies lie.

2
 MG 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

He's certainly not stupid or ill-informed, I agree.

The rest of you defence of him is delusional, really.  He isn't a man attempting to find some benign future where we live in peace and harmony while dealing with Chinese rule-breaking.  He's been explicit that he thinks the US is in an economic war with China.  He also  was and now is again the leader of Breitbart, a populist rabble rousing propaganda site.  The current headline, for example, is "Marc Elias, Lawyer Tied to Clinton Campaign & ‘Pee Dossier,’ Leads Dems’ Florida Recount Efforts"

1
Pan Ron 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Which openly embraced the white supremacist and white-nationalist alt-right under Bannon's leadership, according to noted left-wing bigot *checks notes* Ben Shapiro.

Indeed.  Ben Shapiro isn't exactly averse to a few over-the-top statements himself though is he?  Especially once he gets a bone between his teeth.

Breitbart was obviously going to be embraced BY white supremacists, the enemy of my enemy being my friend.  Its an online tabloid, like Bild or the Mail.  Likewise, Bannon is openly sympathetic to nationalists, populists, and clearly not opposed to white nationalism. 

None of that in itself is bad though.  Unless you automatically equate white nationalism with things like Nazism and extremism - skin headed goons beating up blacks in the street.  From electoral results alone, the left needs to wake up to the fact that white nationalism has (and probably always was) far more nuanced than that.  And continuing to equate white identity with extremism is actually the problem.

The connections with the extreme are obviously there.  And Bannon would obviously be far better placed if he made outright statements that the skin-head fringe should be eradicated.  But then again, how often do the Left make similar denouncements of extreme and bigoted SJW rantings or distance themselves from one-sided op-eds?  Almost never. 

> He either believes in white nationalism and white supremacism

Which are two different things I'm afraid.

 

5
 Postmanpat 09 Nov 2018
In reply to MG:

Yawn."And it took no time at all for that old trope to come out; arguing against inaccuracies and overblown claims hurled at an individual = supporting the individual's views."

  It's partly why I've largely withdrawn from this site.

  Yes, he thinks we are in an economic war with China. Given China's policy of ignoring or exploiting the rules based post war financial and trading system how would you describe it and what would be your policy solution?

3
 MonkeyPuzzle 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> youtube.com/watch?v=TGJZQPARAIc&

> This interview of Bannon by Emily Maitlis is worth a watch if only for the stunned mullet look on Emily's face as she utterly fails to question what he says, preferring to to stick to the preprogrammed "yere, yere, yere, but your a nasty racist fascist blah blah aren't you?" approach. It's up there with the Cathy Newman/Jordan Peterson car crash.

>  The liberal left does itself no favours by sticking to simple stereotypes of such people instead of addressing what they actually say.

Very true. But it's possible to think that Bannon is dangerous and Peterson is plain wrong simultaneous to wishing we had better journalism.

Pan Ron 09 Nov 2018
In reply to MG:

> Yes, but you lump everyone to the left of, well Baanon, together as "The Left" and write reams and reams of overblown inaccurate text criticising them, while defending with similarly long tracts every loud mouth populist on the right.  It's pretty clear where your sympathies lie.

It can't be that clear if you have got it wrong.  My sympathy is with whichever side is subject to the more one-sided, and bullshit, narrative.  During the Bush, Obama and Tea Party years, I felt that was the Left.  Now I feel it is the Right.

That says nothing about which side I support and I'd like to think you could argue in support of either side if they are being unfairly maligned.  

 

3
 MG 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yawn."And it took no time at all for that old trope to come out; arguing against inaccuracies and overblown claims hurled at an individual = supporting the individual's views."

Which I didn't do, but carry on.

>   Yes, he thinks we are in an economic war with China. Given China's policy of ignoring or exploiting the rules based post war financial and trading system how would you describe it and what would be your policy solution?

Well I don't think taking in terms of war is looking for a solution. I think it's highly dangerous.  I don't have a neat solution I can present in a few paragraphs, or course, but a mixture of diplomacy, measured economic measures, and simply acknowledging China's power are probably decent option.s

I see you ignored the Breitbart aspect, which is probably where most of the objections to Bannon originate.

 

 Postmanpat 09 Nov 2018
In reply to MG:

> Which I didn't do, but carry on.

>

   You claimed I was defending him". I wasn't, as I deliberately made clear. I was providing another angle from another source.

But I think I think you have confirmed me in my decision to withdraw by your crass response, so I'll not carry on.

 MG 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

Goodness!  Defending does not equal supporting, unless you think all barristers support their clients action.  And crass?  I argued against your assertions.  If you really find that happening too trying, then yes, you are probably best leaving...all social interaction.

 neilh 09 Nov 2018
In reply to MG:

Well we in the UK /EU are in an economic war with China and the Chinese are also in an economic war with UK/EU and USA.

It is hardly controversial.

 MG 09 Nov 2018
In reply to neilh:

> It is hardly controversial.

I'd say it's highly controversial (and unwise) to claim that.  Competition, certainly, but war?  That sort of language and thinking is what leads to, well, actual war.

 Postmanpat 09 Nov 2018
In reply to MG:

> Goodness!  Defending does not equal supporting, unless you think all barristers support their clients action.  And crass?  I argued against your assertions.  If you really find that happening too trying, then yes, you are probably best leaving...all social interaction.


Ah, the old hair splitting a la xenophobe and racist. I didn't make any assertions. I raised a few points for discussion.

You imagined assertions because you have to put everything into one of your stereotype boxes.

Bannon is an interesting character who gains a lot of traction. Hence there is  an interesting discussion to be had about him. But not with the likes of you.

6
 MG 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Ah, the old hair splitting a la xenophobe and racist. I didn't make any assertions. I raised a few points for discussion.

You wrote "it is simplistic to regard him as "right wing"." and "His economic nationalism...puts him much more in the left wing tradition." Those are assertions, and the tone of your post was certainly defensive of him. (And BTW, there is a clear distinction between xenophobia and racism; it's not hairsplitting).

> Bannon is an interesting character who gains a lot of traction. Hence there is  an interesting discussion to be had about him. But not with the likes of you.

If you say so.  Bizarrely I actually agree with some of what you say but your new delicate snowflake persona will indeed make it hard to have any sort of discussion.

Post edited at 14:14
1
 Bob Kemp 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

Perhaps Bannon isn't a racist in a personal sense, but he's trying to normalise racism, as in his 'let them call you racist' speech. 

 Harry Jarvis 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Removed User:

> Steve Bannon is attending a conference next Wednesday in Embra. It has been suggested that a demonstration is held to protest at his obnoxious philosophy.

> I'm never sure about these things. Are they just virtue signalling and do they make the protesters look weak, a small minority standing outside in the rain while the powerful man dispenses pearls of "wisdom", inside a warm and dry venue

If you think his philosophy is obnoxious and worth opposing, you should oppose it, and attending a demonstration would seem to be a worthwhile way of showing your opposition. Whether others consider you to be 'virtue signalling' (dreadful term) is for them to worry about. What you should worry about is whether you are content for his message to be disseminated without dissenting voices. And consider, an active democracy needs dissent. 

 Coel Hellier 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> ... it is simplistic to regard him as "right wing". His economic nationalism: support for protectionism and trade tariffs, Keynsian infrastructure spending etc, puts him much more in the left wing tradition.

None of that matters! 

In modern parlance: against mass immigration = "right wing", regardless of any other policy position.   In favour of open borders  = "left wing", regardless of any other policy position. 

1
 Rob Exile Ward 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Is ANYBODY in favour of either 'Open Borders' OR 'Mass Immigration'? 
 

 jkarran 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Is ANYBODY in favour of either 'Open Borders' OR 'Mass Immigration'? 

As an objective I think a world with 'open borders' is a good one. The aim and indeed necessity of course would be for that to not result in 'mass immigration', simply the freedom to move, work and live well where we desire.

jk

 Rob Exile Ward 09 Nov 2018
In reply to jkarran:

I agree, but that depends first creating a world where people aren't forced to move by economic desperation, war or persecution.

Might be a bit of a delay before it can be realised.

Removed User 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> None of that matters! 

> In modern parlance: against mass immigration = "right wing", regardless of any other policy position.   In favour of open borders  = "left wing", regardless of any other policy position. 


Yes, it always seems to me peculiar the things people associate with left and right wing. Apparently opposition to nuclear weapons is "left wing" and denial of climate change is "right wing" for examples.

 TobyA 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> In modern parlance: against mass immigration = "right wing", regardless of any other policy position.   In favour of open borders  = "left wing", regardless of any other policy position. 

In whose modern parlance? Yours? That's just ridiculous. 

 TobyA 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

I'm not sure how interested you really are in digging into Bannon's really quite bizarre 'ideology', sort of ethno-nationalist, sort of reactionary Catholic, sort of small government/neo-liberal while at the same time being anti-globalist. I'm unconvinced it actually makes much sense, but with his oft cited praise for the early 20th century quasi-(?) or proto-(?) fascist thinker Evola, and affinities to Dugin - a scary thinker if you've ever read him or about him - I can see why people people are nervous of Bannon.  I google Bannon, Evola and Eurasianism and this article came up which is quite a neat summary of what I remembered reading about: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/the-strange-origins-of-steve-bannon...

I think it's a great question for future historians how much Bannon really saw Trump as some almost naturalistic force pulling towards his idea of the world and how much it was totally instrumental ("this guys a complete idiot, hence I can control him and ride his coat tails to power").

 Rob Exile Ward 09 Nov 2018
In reply to TobyA:

Just to lighten up a bit, it looks like Bannon's grasp of arithmetic is a bit dodgy:

"You have to control three things,” he explained, “borders, currency, and military and national identity. "

I would have made that four?

 Harry Jarvis 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Aside from his views on racism and so forth (whatever they actually are), it is simplistic to regard him as "right wing".

Although it might be tempting to regard him as right-wing, given that he identified Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right”. 

I look forward to the inevitable nit-picking regarding the differences between 'right wing' and 'alt-right'. 

 Bob Kemp 09 Nov 2018
In reply to TobyA:

His approach seems classically fascist in its cherry-picking of often contradictory ideas around anti-liberalism, national rebirth, racism, corporatism and so on. 

1
 neilh 09 Nov 2018
In reply to MG:

Not really unless you are not aware of the trade tariffs issue etc etc which has already kicked off.

Pan Ron 09 Nov 2018
In reply to TobyA:

> I'm unconvinced it actually makes much sense,

Which might be what does make sense to people.  If other stuff doesn't appear to be working, if traditional parties you would vote for conflict with other core beliefs, of they all seem to follow pretty traditional and expected doctrines, then there's room for Bannonish ideas - like Nader or Perot.  

 

1
Pan Ron 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> His approach seems classically fascist in its cherry-picking of often contradictory ideas around anti-liberalism, national rebirth, racism, corporatism and so on. 

If you're going down that road then a good thought exercise is to apply the same test to strongly left-wing figures; they too have collapses around liberal values, belief in a utopian new dawn, decree acceptable and unacceptable racisms, and so on...

Just as anyone on the right can be connected to fascism, anyone on the left can be connected to Stalin.  Its a mugs game and another example of crying wolf.

5
 Bob Kemp 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

This isn't really a thought experiment is it? It's just basic whataboutery.

Whether you can connect anyone on the left to Stalin is an absurd assertion in any case. It ignores all the many left-wing thinkers and activists who opposed Stalin, from the ILP to Orwell and Raymond Williams. 

Of course I suppose it depends what you mean by 'connected'. Trotsky was connected, by an ice-pick in the end. 

As for 'crying wolf', let's remember that politicians and media in the 1930s were so worried about the menace of anti-capitalism that they failed to notice the threat of fascism until it was too late, and as we know were even enthusiastic about it. 

Post edited at 19:47
 TobyA 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> If you're going down that road then a good thought exercise is to...

With your developing new worldview I think you're missing the point here massively. We are not (well I'm not and neither is Bob Kemp from what I can see) saying "Boo! Hiss! Bannon is a Nazi! Boo! He's a fascist! I hate Fascists! Boo!" Rather he himself has pointed himself to the work of early 20th century philosophers who are clearly connected to some forms of early fascist thought. But his particular brand of Catholicism is probably just as important in shaping the ideology that he tried to operationalise through Trump. There is a multifaceted and complicated political tradition of fascism and Bannon's ideas flirt with some of that - that's not the same as just calling him a fascist.

It's just the same as people looking at Cheney's influence on Bush 15 years ago, looked at Wolfowitz and Pearle and co, ended up reading Leo Strauss.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

When did anyone mention Putin

 

 Coel Hellier 09 Nov 2018
In reply to TobyA:

> In whose modern parlance? Yours? That's just ridiculous. 

Well, there was a slight simplification involved.

But also a large dollop of truth.

4
 The New NickB 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> But also a large dollop of truth.

There is a large dollop of something!

 wbo 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Postmanpat: I agree he is very far from the right wing we have seen recently , but rather a nationalist populist with an aim of supporting 'traditional' culture although I am very sure the cultures he prefers to support are white and christian.

To Pan Ron - you claim ignorance, which is an interesting position for someone claiming such insight of left right politics, but when presented with any material not supporting your supposedly uninformed position, you just discard it? 

 MG 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It's more right-wing equals insular, parochial, and fearful of others. Liberal equals open accepting and cooperation. Left equals backward looking socialism. 

 Coel Hellier 09 Nov 2018
In reply to MG:

> It's more right-wing equals insular, parochial, and fearful of others

And yet "right wing" is also associated with trans-national capitalism, multi-national companies, zero-tariff free-trade, libertarian globalisation. 

 MG 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Not particularly - that's liberal economics. 

 Jon Stewart 09 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> I previously could not comprehend it.  Why so many people appeared to vote against their best interests.  Why a whole political movement (the Right) undermined what was intrinsically good (the Left).  

Your entire world is one big black and white fallacy. 

1
 Pete Pozman 10 Nov 2018
In reply to Removed User:

Bannon should be free to speak wherever he likes. But there should always be a howling mob outside any venue which far outnumbers those inside. Let him speak then let him be damned.

Post edited at 08:51
 TobyA 10 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And yet "right wing" is also associated with trans-national capitalism, multi-national companies, zero-tariff free-trade, libertarian globalisation. 

Agreed, which kind of makes Pan's and to some extent your usage of "left" and "right" as describing discrete monoliths, or at least shorthand towards describing the monoliths, as quite useless!

 

 Coel Hellier 10 Nov 2018
In reply to TobyA:

> Agreed, which kind of makes Pan's and to some extent your usage of "left" and "right" as describing discrete monoliths, ... as quite useless!

Well my definition, for starters, was a criticism of how some people use the labels, not the definition I personally favour.

My definition would be something like:

Left: The government's job is to look after its people, including substantial amounts of redistribution of wealth to reduce inequalities. 

Right: It's people's own job to look after themselves; the government's job is to ensure that society functions, but, while it should be concerns with equality of opportunity, it should not be much concerned about equality of outcome. Thus, some degree of redistribution of wealth is fair enough to improve the way society functions, but otherwise it should let people get on with it, and if there are big inequalities as a result then that's not really a problem. 

 

 Bob Kemp 10 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Defining the left in terms of the government's job is hugely inadequate. Some variants of left-wing thinking like anarchism are anti-government. Redistibution of wealth is okay, a core focus, but mechanisms vary greatly.

 Coel Hellier 10 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Some variants of left-wing thinking like anarchism are anti-government.

Anyone who thinks that anarchism is left wing simply hasn't thought it through.   Anarchism means that there is no central authority to impose any rules or structure, anyone can do whatever they wish.  It would be a Wild West scenario and the very epitome of ultra-right-wing politics.

What people who think they want "anarchy" really mean is "we don't want a government as now, we want a government that *we* specify and control".   But that's not anarchy, it would be something like communism with a strong central control.

4
 Bob Kemp 10 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

There is an extensive tradition of left anarchism. Most forms of anarchism have characteristics associated with what you call the left. They have a lot in common with communism in that they look towards the withering away of the state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

 

1
 Jon Stewart 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Left: The government's job is to look after its people, including substantial amounts of redistribution of wealth to reduce inequalities. 

> Right: It's people's own job to look after themselves; the government's job is to ensure that society functions, but, while it should be concerns with equality of opportunity, it should not be much concerned about equality of outcome. Thus, some degree of redistribution of wealth is fair enough to improve the way society functions, but otherwise it should let people get on with it,

Yes, that's largely how I view left and right too. And which is why, from a rationalist, scientific world-view, right-wing philosophy is flawed at the deepest possible level:

We live in a causal universe, we don't have magic immortal souls that have free will which break free from the laws of cause and effect which govern everything else. The way our lives pan out follow from the preceding events. "People's own job to look after themselves" is a meaningless concept, since they have no control over the environment they are born into. The idea that whether you're born into privilege, or born into poverty, then it's no one's fault but your own when you end up in difficulty (poverty, crime, etc) is the deep-rooted philosophical error (and frankly just an embarrassing error of basic common sense) of right wing politics. And as you well know, pointing to outlier examples of rags-to-riches stories is not a valid argument to refute this.

That's why if we want to improve society, we have to do it collectively to change the conditions that people grow up in - and that means spending money on public services so that everyone goes to a good school, gets good healthcare, and parents are supported to give their children as good a start in life as possible.

> and if there are big inequalities as a result then that's not really a problem. 

You only need to have a the briefest little think about this to see that it's not true. Big inequalities just factually *are* a problem. Creating a society that has people living in miserable conditions while all around them others live in luxury is precisely what causes social problems such as crime and ill-health which even from the most callous viewpoint are problems for those further up the strata: you got to pay taxes to clean up the mess.

I can understand when people who believe in nonsense like cosmic justice and immortal souls and what have you take on right wing views - that's very consistent. If you're in a shit heap, then hey bad luck, that was god's intention. But I can't understand how people with a rationalist philosophy justify their right-wing politics - it's inconsistent. But we also know that human psychology is very good at compartmentalising inconsistent beliefs when self-interest takes precedent over intellectual rigour.

Post edited at 20:21
4
 Coel Hellier 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> They have a lot in common with communism in that they look towards the withering away of the state.

Communism is the very opposite of the withering away of the state.  And "anarchism" does not do away with "the state", it just places much of the power with a local governing body.

None of these "left wing anarchy" ideas are anything to do with actual anarchy ("a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems"), they just have a very different way of organising things than the current one. 

6
 RomTheBear 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Lusk:

> Wow! What outstanding snobbery.

Snobbery and truth sometimes intersect.

 RomTheBear 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Well my definition, for starters, was a criticism of how some people use the labels, not the definition I personally favour.

> My definition would be something like:

> Left: The government's job is to look after its people, including substantial amounts of redistribution of wealth to reduce inequalities. 

> Right: It's people's own job to look after themselves; the government's job is to ensure that society functions, but, while it should be concerns with equality of opportunity, it should not be much concerned about equality of outcome. Thus, some degree of redistribution of wealth is fair enough to improve the way society functions, but otherwise it should let people get on with it, and if there are big inequalities as a result then that's not really a problem. 

A completely irrelevant dichotomy in 2018, though.

2
 Coel Hellier 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I agree with you on the effect of prior conditions leading to current outcomes, and I agree with you in rejecting "free will" ideas that imply that "it's nobody's fault but your own".  However, I don't fully agree that that refutes right-wingism

> That's why if we want to improve society, ...

Notions of how to "improve" a society depend on value judgments as to what is an improvement, and those value judgements might not be shared by a right winger.

> Big inequalities just factually *are* a problem. Creating a society that has people living in miserable conditions while all around them others live in luxury is precisely what causes social problems such as crime ...

The right winger might reply:

1) True to a certain extent, but only to the extent necessary to mean that crime is not too big a problem.  Or:

2) But any attempt to achieve equality, such that there is no crime, requires such a degree of state control that it is worse for everyone, as demonstrated by attempts at communist societies.   Or:

3) People want to be free to try, to strive and succeed or to fail.  If you don't allow, say, one person to succeed and get substantially richer than another, then it stifles human spirit and people don't actually like that sort of society. Or:

4) If you allow unequal, capitalist economies, then de facto the less well off also benefit over time.  If you look at absolute standards of material living standards (as opposed to relative ones) then the poor benefit also.    That's shown by the fact that nowadays even poor people take for granted things (such as refrigerators, TVs, etc) that were once luxuries.  The material standard of living of someone on minimum wage nowadays compares well with someone rather wealthy in Victorian times.

2
Lusk 11 Nov 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Snobbery and truth sometimes intersect.


Still a f*cking snob, though.
I hate people who look down their noses at others.

 Jon Stewart 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Notions of how to "improve" a society depend on value judgments as to what is an improvement, and those value judgements might not be shared by a right winger.

I guess that's true, but they'd be in far a hard time justifying their judgements that a society in which a greater number of people suffer greater degrees of ill health and misery are in improvement!

> The right winger might reply:

> 1) True to a certain extent, but only to the extent necessary to mean that crime is not too big a problem.

> 2) But any attempt to achieve equality, such that there is no crime, requires such a degree of state control that it is worse for everyone, as demonstrated by attempts at communist societies. 

> 3) People want to be free to try, to strive and succeed or to fail.  

> 4) If you allow unequal, capitalist economies, then de facto the less well off also benefit over time. 

None of which would refute the left-winger's argument for a capitalist social democracy: all they'd be doing is straw-manning left wing politics as communism and "equality of outcome" because they don't have any arguments to justify why we should cut taxes and public services for those who depend upon them.

1
 Coel Hellier 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I guess that's true, but they'd be in far a hard time justifying their judgements that a society in which a greater number of people suffer greater degrees of ill health and misery are in improvement!

But the evidence seems to be that societies run on centre-right economic policies (ie free-market, free-enterprise) that allow inequality and allow people to get rich, end up with *fewer* people suffering poverty and misery than societies that aim for equality of outcome. 

Of course there is some balance to be had here, which I guess is why most people are more "centrist" than far-right or far-left.

 Coel Hellier 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Most forms of anarchism have characteristics associated with what you call the left.

To put my reply more simplistically.    In your anarchy, what is to stop someone getting hold of gun, stealing your possessions at gunpoint, then paying off thugs to protect himself, setting himself up as the local robber baron or mafia boss? 

If the answer is "nothing" then it doesn't strike me as "left wing".

If the answer is "some sort of organised authority" then it doesn't sound to me like anarchy.

 Jon Stewart 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> But the evidence seems to be that societies run on centre-right economic policies (ie free-market, free-enterprise) that allow inequality and allow people to get rich, end up with *fewer* people suffering poverty and misery than societies that aim for equality of outcome. 

Errr...I'm sorry? The evidence seems to be that social democracies, with high-tax, high spend regimes deliver the best outcomes. 

> Of course there is some balance to be had here, which I guess is why most people are more "centrist" than far-right or far-left.

Exactly - and that balance falls on higher tax and better services than what we have in the UK!

 

1
 RomTheBear 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> But the evidence seems to be that societies run on centre-right economic policies (ie free-market, free-enterprise) that allow inequality and allow people to get rich, end up with *fewer* people suffering poverty and misery than societies that aim for equality of outcome.

Can you give an example of society that aims for equality of outcome ? Or is it again a made up "fact" of yours ?

Post edited at 21:43
 Coel Hellier 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The evidence seems to be that social democracies, with high-tax, high spend regimes deliver the best outcomes. 

But they have a capitalist "engine" driving the economy, and they allow large differentials in wealth. 

 Coel Hellier 11 Nov 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Can you give an example of society that aims for equality of outcome ?

Communist ones.

1
 RomTheBear 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Communist ones.

Really ? There are only five communist countries and I don't see equality of outcome in any of them.

You seem obsessed by this equality of outcome thing even though the idea is effectively is dead and buried, even in the few communists countries left.

Post edited at 22:16
 Jon Stewart 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> But they have a capitalist "engine" driving the economy, and they allow large differentials in wealth. 

Yes, I know, and it's what I believe is the best model. I addressed in my first post the erroneous straw-manning of left-wing politics with communism. We started with sensible definitions of what we meant by 'left' and 'right'. But when I invited you to defend right-wing political ideology - your words, "It's people's own job to look after themselves", all you've done is straw-man centre left social democracy as communism. Even when I addressed this at the start. 

I invite you to defend right-wing ideology of lower taxes and allowing inequality to grow; and you respond with irrelevant points about communism. It's not very good, is it?

2
 Bob Kemp 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

One of the ultimate aims of communism was supposed to be the withering away of the state. Engels I think first came up with that idea.

As for anarchy, you said originally that "Anyone who thinks that anarchism is left wing simply hasn't thought it through." That is clearly inadequate, as I showed above. Plenty of anarchist thinkers did exactly that: thought it through. You now seem to be proposing that there is some kind of 'actual anarchy', using one possible definition of anarchy as being the only one, and choosing to ignore all the other ideas of anarchy that don't suit you.. 

This is all an attempt to escape from my initial point, that not all left wing forms are about big government and the state. You have proposed nothing to refute that point. 

 

1
 Bob Kemp 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> To put my reply more simplistically.    In your anarchy, what is to stop someone getting hold of gun, stealing your possessions at gunpoint, then paying off thugs to protect himself, setting himself up as the local robber baron or mafia boss? 

> If the answer is "nothing" then it doesn't strike me as "left wing".

> If the answer is "some sort of organised authority" then it doesn't sound to me like anarchy.

This is a straw man. I am not proposing anarchy, so it's not my anarchy. I simply pointed out that there are forms of left-wing thinking that are based around ideas of anarchy. 

 Bob Kemp 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Ha! Just noticed you're highlighting straw men too!

Bit late for Guy Fawkes Night!

Post edited at 22:29
 Jon Stewart 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Ha! Just noticed you're highlighting straw men too!

Why would I engage in a conversation with Coel unless I wanted to talk about straw men and evading the question?

 Bob Kemp 11 Nov 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Plenty of anarchist thinkers did exactly that: thought it through. You now seem to be proposing that there is some kind of 'actual anarchy', using one possible definition of anarchy as being the only one,

To proceed, perhaps you could state what you think the word "anarchy" actually means.   I understand it to mean what the dictionary says:

"A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems."  (Oxford Dictionaries)

"a situation in which there is no organization and control, especially in society, because there is no effective government"  (Cambridge)

"a state of society without government or law; political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control:"

1
 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> There are only five communist countries and I don't see equality of outcome in any of them.

I said "aim for" equality of outcome, and communist ideology does aim for that.  It doesn't actually work.

 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> We started with sensible definitions of what we meant by 'left' and 'right'. But when I invited you to defend right-wing political ideology - your words, "It's people's own job to look after themselves", all you've done is straw-man centre left social democracy as communism.

Agreed, we started with sensible definitions of left and right.

You then replied that right wing ideology was clearly wrong.  I replied along the lines that both hard-right and hard-left ideologies seemed to me refuted.   But, that a center-right person could adequately defend a society with due balance between left and right mechanisms.

You seem to be agreeing, but with balancing the two somewhat differently than a centre-right person would. 

Thus, we seem (perhaps?) to be agreed that as the "engine" driving the economy we need a free-market, free-enterprise economy in which inequalities occur and in which people can get rich (that's basically right wing), but we also need some degree of redistribution of wealth for the better functioning of society (both left and right are ok with that), and also for giving a decent standard of living to those who are less able to look after themselves (a left-wing concept).

If we're agreed along those lines then from there we're just haggling about exactly how to balance things.   

 Offwidth 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I'm increasingly of the view Coel has agreed his profile to be taken over by some academic  colleague's  AI experiment. Yet another thread with his precious Oxford English and "please can you give me an example of..." nonsense, when people have already been doing that !? 

Political Anarchism is hardly new even if most people are ignorant of it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

 

3
 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

> Political Anarchism is hardly new even if most people are ignorant of it.

And what people call "political anarchism" simply is not "anarchy" by the conventional and accepted meaning of the word. 

Fringe theorists are not entitled to redefine common words. 

And further, this side-track started with Bob Kemp suggesting that "left wing" does not necessarily involve a state to redistribute wealth.  Yes it does.   

Of course you can call it something different from "the state", but it is, de facto, a state, some organised body with the authority to redistribute wealth. 

3
 Bob Kemp 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> To proceed, perhaps you could state what you think the word "anarchy" actually means.   I understand it to mean what the dictionary says:

Words can have multiple meanings remember. The point you're evading is that there are several definitions of anarchy. The bit you deliberately chose to omit from your OED definition may help: "2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal." (My italics). 

Or you could try one of Merriam-Webster's alternatives: "c.  a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government." You can see (I hope) how the left-wing anarchist models and ideologies fit with these definitions. That is not to deny that the other commonly used meaning is wrong, just not relevant to the point I was making originally. Oh, and anarchist philosophies with right-wing characteristics are also available - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

 Bob Kemp 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And what people call "political anarchism" simply is not "anarchy" by the conventional and accepted meaning of the word. 

The fact that people don't know about something isn't a basis for saying that it doesn't exist.

> And further, this side-track started with Bob Kemp suggesting that "left wing" does not necessarily involve a state to redistribute wealth.  Yes it does.   

I didn't say that. Don't make things up. What I said was "Defining the left in terms of the government's job is hugely inadequate. Some variants of left-wing thinking like anarchism are anti-government. Redistibution of wealth is okay, a core focus, but mechanisms vary greatly." A core focus, get it? My objection was to you making government an essential feature of your definition. There are other variants of left-wing thinking beside anarchism that don't involve government too, like syndicalism. 

> Of course you can call it something different from "the state", but it is, de facto, a state, some organised body with the authority to redistribute wealth. 

That's not an adequate definition of a state. 

 

Post edited at 11:01
 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> "2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal." (My italics). 

And absolute freedom of the individual is the very opposite of left-wing thought with its emphasis on equality.

> You can see (I hope) how the left-wing anarchist models and ideologies fit with these definitions.

Nope, I can't.   Let's get concrete.

You have anarcho-syndacilist commune A in one valley.  In the next valley you have a separate body of people, B. 

* B does better than A and becomes much richer than A, either from harder work, innate talent, better soil for agriculture, or whatever. 

Is this inequality fine?  Not a problem?  Or is there some body with the authority to redistribute wealth from B to A?

* B and A get into a dispute over ownership or control of some land midway between the two.   Is the dispute settled by guns and force? A feud? Or is there a body with the authority to settle the issue and enforce rules?

* On the disputed land, a member of B kills a member of A.   One side says it was aggression, the other self defence.   Is the dispute settled by guns and force? A feud? Or is there a body with the authority to settle the issue and enforce rules?

In all such cases: if there is no body to settle such issues then it is not "left wing" by any sensible account.  If there *is* a body to settle such issues then it is not "anarchy" by any sensible meaning of the word.

I'm sticking to my claim that anyone who thinks that "anarchy" would produce a left-wing outcome either hasn't thought it through, or is misusing the term. 

3
 Doug 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

or even Anarcho-syndicalism (as referenced in Monty Python & the holy grail, amongst other works of reference )

 Offwidth 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

"Fringe theorists are not entitled to redefine common words. " You seem to me to be living (maybe simulated living) proof that they can try.  I've not seen a dictionary without the political anarchist definition, as Bob rightly illustrates with some common examples. The wikipedia page shows examples where the left wing 'state' didn't have control but the people within it did.

By your mad definition of what constitues left wing the Labour party probaby wouldn't meet the criteria (think on that valley idiocy).

As for capitalism versus other isms the jury is surely out. Social democracy seems to me to have so far led to the best quality of life for its citizens, rich and poor,  and it balances constrained capitalist and (what the US would call socialist) social equality ideas. We can't even say communism has truely failed, china is doing pretty well, with its flip side of the move to social democracy in Europe. Bankrupt Cuba has a better health system than the US for its poor at a tiny fraction of the US costs.

Post edited at 11:22
2
 Bob Kemp 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

You insist on trying to drag this discussion into another area. I am not interested in the validity or otherwise of anarchist arguments. The fact that they may be problematic or even blatantly and ridiculously wrong  is irrelevant to my original point, that not all left wing thinking involves a role for government. Whether or not this thinking is correct, or would produce a left-wing outcome is beside the point. I'm merely showing that your initial definition was inadequate.

 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> my original point, that not all left wing thinking involves a role for government. Whether or not this thinking is correct, or would produce a left-wing outcome is beside the point.

So it's still "left-wing thinking" even if it doesn't produce a left-wing outcome?

Which comes back to my point that anyone thinking that anarchy would produce anything close to what left-wing people want simply hasn't thought it through.

 RomTheBear 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I said "aim for" equality of outcome, and communist ideology does aim for that.  It doesn't actually work.

So we don't actually have data on whether it works or not, since it's not been implemented successfully anywhere.

It begs the question as to why you are so obsessed with the consequences of political aim that evidently has never realised anywhere. Maybe because it's an useful strawman.

 Bob Kemp 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> So it's still "left-wing thinking" even if it doesn't produce a left-wing outcome?

Of course it is. It's normal and rational to separate out thinking, ideas, ideologies, philosophies from outcomes. 

> Which comes back to my point that anyone thinking that anarchy would produce anything close to what left-wing people want simply hasn't thought it through.

Once again, that may well be true but that is not the point. 

 

2
 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> So we don't actually have data on whether it works or not, since it's not been implemented successfully anywhere.

Nice one!  Brilliant!   That was self-parody, wasn't it?

"We don't have any data on whether flapping our arms and trying to fly works or not, since it's not been implemented successfully anywhere."

 

 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Once again, that may well be true but that is not the point. 

It is the point I'm making, that left-wing-ism requires an interventionist state (or whatever you want to call it) to distribute and redistribute wealth. 

 Harry Jarvis 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> It is the point I'm making, that left-wing-ism requires an interventionist state (or whatever you want to call it) to distribute and redistribute wealth. 

Our current government intervenes through taxation and market regulation. It distributes and redistributes wealth through tax allowances, benefits, and the NHS. Would you say we have a left-ish government at the moment? 

1
 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Would you say we have a left-ish government at the moment? 

No. 

And "leftwing-ism requires an interventionist state to redistribute wealth" is not the same as "any interventionist state that redistributes wealth is left wing".

 Bob Kemp 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It looks like you're conflating theory and practice. I was talking about thinking. You want to talk about practice, which is fine, just not relevant to the point I was making. Attempts to introduce left wing ideas in practice have all so far as I know involved some element of intervention from the state. I'm not arguing about that. 

 Harry Jarvis 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

So on the one hand you assert: 

'leftwing-ism requires an interventionist state to redistribute wealth'

while on the other hand you do not demur from the notion that our current government, which is not left wing, intervenes through taxation and market regulation, and it distributes and redistributes wealth through tax allowances, benefits, and the NHS. 

Which rather suggests your attempted definition merely describes government and makes no useful contribution to any discussion about what constitutes left or right. 

 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

You seem to be still struggling with the concept that: "leftwing-ism requires an interventionist state to redistribute wealth" is not the same as "any interventionist state that redistributes wealth is left wing".

> makes no useful contribution to any discussion about what constitutes left or right. 

Yes it does.  It asserts that, contrary to the above suggestion by Bob Kemp, one cannot have a "left wing" outcome without an interventionist state to redistribute wealth.

 Harry Jarvis 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> You seem to be still struggling with the concept that: "leftwing-ism requires an interventionist state to redistribute wealth" is not the same as "any interventionist state that redistributes wealth is left wing".

You really don't like being challenged, do you, particularly when you know you're talking gibberish to no effect. Describing left and right in terms of state intervention and redistribution of wealth is utterly meaningless, when it possible to describe all shades of government in the same terms. 

 

 

1
 Bob Kemp 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

>contrary to the above suggestion by Bob Kemp, one cannot have a "left wing" outcome without an interventionist state to redistribute wealth.

How many times do I have to say that I was talking about ideas not outcomes?

Post edited at 15:10
 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> You really don't like being challenged, do you, ...

I do get frustrated by the sheer perversity of some of the commentary here.

> ... particularly when you know you're talking gibberish to no effect.

All I'm stating is that for a left-wing outcome one needs an interventionist state to distribute or redistribute wealth.  That's just so mundane and obvious a thing to claim that it is utterly perverse to deny it. 

> Describing left and right in terms of state intervention and redistribution of wealth is utterly meaningless, when it possible to describe all shades of government in the same terms

Nope.  Left-wing governments do a lot more of the redistribution of wealth, and right wing governments do a lot less.   Centre-left and centre-right governments (like the one we have now) do it to some degree. 

To say that is "utterly meaningless" is just clueless -- sorry.

 

 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> How many times do I have to say that I was talking about ideas not outcomes?

Well I was talking about outcomes!  Actual, in practice, what actually happens.   

You were the one who started this sidetrack by telling me I was wrong.  I'm sticking by my original claim.

 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

"All I'm stating is that for a left-wing outcome one needs an interventionist state to distribute or redistribute wealth.  That's just so mundane and obvious a thing to claim that it is utterly perverse to deny it."

I mean, who else is going to do it?   Elves?  Faeries?  Or are people just going to donate to each other out of the goodness of their hearts?  (yeah, right)

 Harry Jarvis 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> All I'm stating is that for a left-wing outcome one needs an interventionist state to distribute or redistribute wealth.  That's just so mundane and obvious a thing to claim that it is utterly perverse to deny it. 

Idiot. All governments are interventionist and all governments redistribute wealth. A right-wing government intervenes - one only needs to think back to the Thatcher era to consider the consequences of government interventions. It did a marvellous job of redistributing the not-inconsiderable new-found oil wealth to those who found themselves unemployed through no fault of their own.  

> Nope.  Left-wing governments do a lot more of the redistribution of wealth, and right wing governments do a lot less.   Centre-left and centre-right governments (like the one we have now) do it to some degree. 

Can you advise on the levels of redistribution which count as left wing, and which as right wing? Are these internationally defined standards? Or are they just your own made-up numbers? 

 

3
 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Can you advise on the levels of redistribution which count as left wing, ...

More than average.

> ... and which as right wing?

Less than average. 

Where, "average" is the "centre ground" (more or less by definition).

 Bob Kemp 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Well I was talking about outcomes!  Actual, in practice, what actually happens.   

You weren't talking about outcomes. You were talking about definitions. 

> You were the one who started this sidetrack by telling me I was wrong.  I'm sticking by my original claim.

Your original claim that "Anyone who thinks that anarchism is left wing simply hasn't thought it through."?  Stick to it if you want. I've shown quite clearly that you're wrong to say this. There is a form of anarchism that is left-wing. That is unarguable. I've shown you the evidence. Saying you were talking about outcomes is an evasion. 

 

 Harry Jarvis 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I note you choose not to disagree with my proposal that all governments are interventionist and redistribute wealth. 

In 1981 (Thatcher, quite right-wing), government spending as a % of GDP was 51.2%. In 2007 (Blair, not quite as right-wing), the equivalent figure was 41%. Of course, this isn't an exact measure of the degree to which wealth is redistributed, but it does seems somewhat at odds with your suggestion that 'right wing governments do a lot less' redistribution than left wing governments. 

 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Your original claim that "Anyone who thinks that anarchism is left wing simply hasn't thought it through."?

And that claim amounts to (expanding a little to elucidate):

"Anyone who thinks that a society in which there was actual anarchy (dictionary definition: "A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems") would produce an outcome that would be regarded as "left wing" simply hasn't thought it through."

> Stick to it if you want.

I do.

> I've shown quite clearly that you're wrong to say this.

No you have not.  What you've shown is that some left-wing theorists theorise and fondly imagine that a state of anarchy would produce an outcome that they want, and which would be regarded as left wing.

While I accept that there are people who think that, I think that  they are wrong, and that they haven't thought through what would happen. 

So, what you've said is in line with my above claim. 

> There is a form of anarchism that is left-wing.

No. Some people *claim* that there are forms of anarchism that would be left-wing! 

But there is no state of actual anarchism that would be, in actuality, left wing.

I'm sticking to my claim, and nothing you've said refutes it.

>  That is unarguable. I've shown you the evidence.

Wrong.  I was talking about the actuality, not the fond imaginings of people who do not understand human nature.

>  Saying you were talking about outcomes is an evasion.

No it is not.  The above claim *is* about outcomes! 

1
 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> I note you choose not to disagree with my proposal that all governments are interventionist and redistribute wealth. 

Sure, they all do that, and where they are on the political spectrum is then a matter of degree.  That's entirely in line with my original comments on this to Jon Stewart. 

 Harry Jarvis 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

So you would be happy to agree with the notion that for a right-wing outcome one needs an interventionist state to distribute or redistribute wealth? 

1
 Bob Kemp 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It really doesn't matter whether you think that left wing anarchists are right or wrong as far as developing a definition of 'left wing' is concerned. Some left-wing thinkers are or were anarchists. That's all we need to know. Any definition that can't include that fails. 

And once again, you were talking about how we define 'left-wing'. You can't define 'left-wing' solely in terms of outcomes, because it involves ideas as well. 

1
 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> So you would be happy to agree with the notion that for a right-wing outcome one needs an interventionist state to distribute or redistribute wealth?

For a centre-right government, yes. For a medium-right government, yes, but less so the further right you go.  For an ultra-right government you'd need very little. 

 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Some left-wing thinkers are or were anarchists. That's all we need to know. Any definition that can't include that fails. 

That's like saying that if some vegetarians theorise about eating meat, then vegetarianism includes eating meat. 

Left-wingism is incompatible with anarchism in the same way that vegetarianism is incompatible with eating meat.  If some "thinkers" haven't worked that out then the defect is with them, not with the definition. 

1
 Harry Jarvis 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> For a centre-right government, yes. For a medium-right government, yes, but less so the further right you go.  For an ultra-right government you'd need very little. 

So we have:

For a right-wing outcome one needs an interventionist state to distribute or redistribute wealth.

For a left-wing outcome one needs an interventionist state to distribute or redistribute wealth.

 

1
 Bob Kemp 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

That's a very poor analogy, and also a circular argument. You'd need to show that being left wing and being an anarchist are opposing positions, like eating meat and not eating meat. They're only opposing positions if you already believe that being left-wing is incompatible with anarchism. 

You are free to think that being 'Left wing' is incompatible with being an anarchist. Take your case up with those left-wing anarchists by all means. It doesn't make them go away, defective thinkers or not. 

Oh, and here's some light reading for you. Even Conservopedia thinks anarchism is extensively 'left-wing'

https://www.conservapedia.com/Anarchism

Post edited at 17:15
Pan Ron 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Have always felt that anarchists are just left-wingers unhappy with the current government - not, as they claim, government itself. Unable to get their way via democratic processes, they see complete overthrow of the entire institution (justified by claiming they want no institution at all) as the goal - and continued overthrow, hunting down of enemies, until they get the control they want (most likely with them calling the shots).  

Some claim to anarchy, people-power, and removal of hierarchy seems a standard feature of left-wing revolutions.  They just seem to lack the introspection, or the honesty, to admit that if they get their way then they will be the ones wielding power (more will-of-the-people, benign dictatorship, stuff).

1
 Bob Kemp 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

Which anarchists are you talking about? Some cases would be useful. I don't know of any recent cases where anarchists have come to power and behaved in the ways you describe.

In fact historically I can't think of many anarchist revolutions that have succeeded for any length of time. Paris Commune? Mexican Revolution and Spanish Revolution had anarchist elements but weren't exclusively anarchist. 

 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> So we have:

> For a right-wing outcome one needs an interventionist state to distribute or redistribute wealth.

> For a left-wing outcome one needs an interventionist state to distribute or redistribute wealth.

Yes, in the former case one needs a little of it, in the latter case one needs a lot of it.

I'm often amazed how many people simply don't get the concept of a continuum. 

 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Oh, and here's some light reading for you. Even Conservopedia thinks anarchism is extensively 'left-wing'

Since when are they an authority on anything?

They're an American religious-loon website.

 Coel Hellier 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Have always felt that anarchists are just left-wingers unhappy with the current government - not, as they claim, government itself.

Exactly.

> They just seem to lack the introspection, or the honesty, to admit that if they get their way then they will be the ones wielding power (more will-of-the-people, benign dictatorship, stuff).

Exactly.  Though, because they think of themselves as the good guys, they don't think of themselves as a "state" or "government" because, in their analysis, those things are always oppressive. 

The reality, of course, is that such people would be the most oppressive form of government of all. 

 Bob Kemp 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I know. Hence the ‘even’. 

Pan Ron 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> In fact historically I can't think of many anarchist revolutions that have succeeded for any length of time.

That is my point. They are entirely theoretical constructs, existing only in people's minds, and poor proof that left-wing ideals can exist without substantial coercion and control.  People are free to set up their own anarchies.  They can do so at home.  They can go off-grid.  There are plenty of hell-holes around the world where anarchy gets tested.  Trying to get everyone to agree that no one is going to take control is the repeated (and utopian) problem.

The odd self-proclaimed anarchist I've met haven't exactly been convincing in their claims to want less control and intrusion in peoples lives - more like their own lives and the lives of people who think like them.  If 60s experiments in hippy culture (e.g communes and Christiania) are anything to go by they're not particularly workable ideas.

The right have certainly been coercive.  But they also have a solid underpinning based on the sovereignty of the individual.  When all else fails that bedrock seems the safest fallback option you can have.  An identity politics that looks out for the interests of what is undeniably the smallest minority there is.

 Bob Kemp 12 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

'The right' sounds like your 'the left'. These groupings are not monolithic entities. The authoritarian right, especially in its fascist form, doesn't have a very good track record as far as its respect for the sovereignty of the individual is concerned. 

 

 Offwidth 16 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Interesting article on the Trump business model here:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/swamp-chronicles/is-fraud-part-of-the-trump-...

1
 Bob Kemp 18 Nov 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks. This comes as no surprise really. 

 

 Thrudge 18 Nov 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> youtube.com/watch?v=TGJZQPARAIc&

> This interview of Bannon by Emily Maitlis is worth a watch

Jesus.... the look on her face says she's interviewing Hitler and can barely suppress her revulsion.  Bit of an over-reaction there, Emily.  You're supposed to be a journalist, not a mime for the disgusted.

 

1
 Thrudge 18 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The Atlantic piece, like many others, is interesting in that it seems to equate anti-leftism with being anti-minorities and rights.  I certainly used to believe that; that the left, and not the right, stood up for rights and freedoms. 

To be fair, the left did used to hold that position.  That's the old left, a left that I very much favoured.  The decline of the modern left into identity politics and hatred of everything that isn't them, and it's slide towards totalitarianism, has taken it far from the old left as we knew it in the UK.

Although, as Orwell pointed out, socialists (who are a minority, and not the mainstream left) have always been characterised by a hatred of anyone with more money than them, rather than compassion for those with less.

 

 Thrudge 18 Nov 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   It's partly why I've largely withdrawn from this site.

Please don't withdraw.  I don't always agree with you, but your positions seem carefully considered and are a necessary counter to the silliness, the slurs, and the obsession with 'muh feelings' (as Youtubers hilariously call it). 

I'm serious - I would be grateful for your continued input.

 Thrudge 18 Nov 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

> We can't even say communism has truely failed

Er.... yes.  We can.  Unless we consider tyranny, abject poverty, and the murder of hundreds of millions of people by their own governments as somehow not constituting a failure.

> china is doing pretty well

'Pretty well' is overly hearty praise.  Maoist China was hell on earth, and the country has certainly moved on from there, but it is still repressive and authoritarian.  They have made great strides economically, but this has only happened since they went a considerable way towards adopting capitalist values and practices.  This is not a great example of the success of communism, but it is a shining example of the good that capitalism can achieve.

> Bankrupt Cuba has a better health system than the US for its poor at a tiny fraction of the US costs.

Bankrupt Cuba.  I don't think I need to add anything here.

 

 Thrudge 18 Nov 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> So we don't actually have data on whether it works or not, since it's not been implemented successfully anywhere.

> It begs the question as to why you are so obsessed with the consequences of political aim that evidently has never realised anywhere. Maybe because it's an useful strawman.

Or maybe because every time communism has been tried it's been a horror show.  Communism has been realised again and again, and every time it's been a nightmare.  In its short history, it's been implemented multiple times in nations large and small, and on populations ethnically and culturally diverse.  Hundreds of millions of murders, poverty and suffering as the norm, and you "haven't got enough data".

I've long fancied being richer and more athletic.  In pursuance of this goal, I have spent every Sunday evening for the past 40 years hitting myself in the face with a hammer.  It hasn't worked yet, but I'm reluctant to call my endeavours a failure - I just haven't got enough data.

 Bob Kemp 18 Nov 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

This kind of failure narrative is an oversimplification. Take the Soviet Union: Russia went from a pre-industrial bankrupt corrupt apology for a country that was characterised by periods of starvation, extensive racism and religious persecution and horrendous exploitation of working people to being a modern industrial nation that was one half of a bipolar world order that dominated the post-war period. In those terms it was an extraordinary success. This was of course at huge cost in terms of the suppression of counter-revolution and the enforcement of state control but it was an extraordinary transformation and it's not enough to say that it was a failure.

I'm not banging the drum for communism by the way - as a social democratic moderate(ish) lefty I think the costs involved are almost inevitably too high - but just calling it a failure is just an extension of Cold War propaganda tropes and not really a useful way of thinking about it. 

Post edited at 17:27
Pan Ron 18 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

The bankruptcy of communism is more social than it is economic.  Whether things were terrible or not prior to the revolution, communism relies on its promise of something better and an eradication of a fundamental unfairness of unequal distribution. 

Any failure to achieve that can never be attributed to a failure in communism itself (caused by annoyances such as differences between aptitudes and effort, the existence of competition, and differing values and opinions). They must be externalised; the only reason we don't have a communist utopia is because greedy, self-centred, capitalists exist.  And if communism isn't working (all but guaranteed) it requires oppression and the rooting out of internal enemies who are undermining it.  It is by its nature prone to excess, oppression and destruction.

It is a truly hideous regime and should be considered as much as fascism.  It's odd that some people wear their communist ideals as a badge of pride.  Presumably because, when the revolution comes, they get to be the ones enforcing fairness.

 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

You missed the point completely. The point is that Coel is apparently obsessed about equality of outcome, despite the fact that it's seemingly impossible to implement so had never occurred.

Hence the strawman.

1
 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

You missed the point completely. The point is that Coel is apparently obsessed about equality of outcome, despite the fact that it's seemingly impossible to implement amd has never occurred, and despite the fact that pretty much nobody supports it.

Even Marx was against et equality of outcomes anyway. Frankly he is just agitating little strawmen for his political Jihad. As usual.

Pan Ron 18 Nov 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You missed the point completely. The point is that Coel is apparently obsessed about equality of outcome, despite the fact that it's seemingly impossible to implement so had never occurred.

We're taking issue with the efforts to ensure equality of outcome, surely?  Which is impossible to implement successfully, hence the annoyance that people insist on trying to do so.

If Marx was against it, that's great.  Perhaps his followers could take that on board too.

Post edited at 18:51
 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> We're taking issue with the efforts to ensure equality of outcome, surely?  Which is impossible to implement successfully, hence the annoyance that people insist on trying to do so.

So he is annoyed at imaginary boogeymen pushing for an imaginary policy that cannot be implemented. The strategy of the strawman.

Post edited at 20:51
Pan Ron 18 Nov 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

What is imaginary about quotas?

 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> What is imaginary about quotas?

Quotas of what ? Where ? What has that got to do with equality of outcomes ?

Post edited at 22:07
 Bob Kemp 18 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

This isn't particularly relevant to my point, which was that the failure narrative of communism is an oversimplification. We know communism has many bad points and can be criticised on many grounds. It is useful to get past cliches and stale propaganda by considering a fuller picture, including the point that in many ways (yes, at great human cost) it actually succeeded for a while. 

>  It is by its nature prone to excess, oppression and destruction.

Well, we don't know any other systems like that do we?

 

 

 Thrudge 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> in many ways (yes, at great human cost) it actually succeeded for a while. 

If I'd been in charge during the 1969 Biafran famine, I could have solved in within a month.  Take half the population, turn them into food, give the food to the other half.  This would, by your criteria, be a 'success'.  

Starving millions Ukrainians and the kulaks to death, incarcerating and murdering God knows how many thousands of political dissidents, and leaving the rest of the Soviet Union in crippling poverty is failure.  Building an industrial nation on a pile of millions of corpses who led lives of unbearable suffering is not a success. 

Try swapping 'communism' for 'fascism' in your commentary and see how it works just as well.  The only difference is that communism kills far more and people and it always hits its own people the hardest.

 

 

 Bob Kemp 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

It's ludicrous to imagine that my criteria for success include an acceptance of the use of cannibalism. 

Try swapping communism for capitalism as well. Building an industrial nation on a pile of millions of slaves, dead and alive... If the moral costs of political systems are taken into account as the main criteria for failure, they're all failures. 

 Coel Hellier 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Try swapping communism for capitalism as well. Building an industrial nation on a pile of millions of slaves, dead and alive... If the moral costs of political systems are taken into account ...

So offering someone a wage in return for work is immoral in your view?

1
 Rob Exile Ward 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

What on earth are you talking about?

 Bob Kemp 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Don't put words into my mouth. That's not what I said at all. I was talking about slavery and the way this was integral to the early British and American capitalist system. 

 Bob Kemp 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

What's the problem?

 

 Thrudge 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

He's trying to defend the indefensible and falsely claiming that capitalism and communism are morally equivalent.  And he's making a pigs ear of it 

 Rob Exile Ward 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Apart from a very broad definition of slavery, you are 100% incorrect. Capitalism was in fact the antithesis to the traditional model of slavery; that's what the US Civil war was largely about, and why slavery was abolished in and by the UK pretty much as the Industrial Revolution began to gather pace.

 Bob Kemp 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

People are very keen to put words into people's mouths here at the moment. I am not trying to claim moral equivalence at all. I am merely trying to make the point that we don't just judge the success or failure of political systems purely on their moral attributes and weaknesses. On that basis it's possible to say that in some respects communism in the Soviet Union was successful. It's inadequate to say that communism was a total failure. It's inaccurate, and fails to help us explain and understand how it is that some people in the former Soviet Union would actually like to see a return to what they, unbelievable as it may seem to us, see as 'the good old days'.

 

 Bob Kemp 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I am not '100% wrong'. Modern accounts of the relationship of slavery and capitalism don't accept this view at all. You might find this review of some of the more recent literature interesting. P. 127 onward is the most relevant part.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&...

 

Post edited at 11:47
 Coel Hellier 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Don't put words into my mouth. That's not what I said at all. I was talking about slavery and the way this was integral to the early British and American capitalist system. 

Well ok, but since "wage slavery" is a concept in communist thought, that was not clear. 

And some capitalist systems might have also had slavery, but the two are not intrinsic to each other.  Capitalism works fine without slavery, and the more capitalist and technologically advanced parts of the US (the North) did not have slavery.   So I don't think that capitalism takes any blame for slavery. 

1
Pan Ron 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> I was talking about slavery and the way this was integral to the early British and American capitalist system. 

Slavery far predates capitalism and is hardly absent under communism. In fact it is probably even further instituted there than in any other.

 Rob Exile Ward 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Thrudge:

I'm still a fan of Elizabeth Gaitskell's description of capitalism. She knew as much as anyone about the hardships caused by it, and was very supportive of efforts to alleviate them (unlike, say, her contemporary and supporter Chares Dickens).

In North and South she puts into one of her characters' words, (I'm quoting from memory): 'X was not so much an idealist that he thought everyone was equal. He knew that if everyone was by some miracle made equal one day, then the next day someone would get up an hour earlier than the rest and so start to gain advantage.'

I believe this is so, i.e. capitalism isn't a movement or a philosophy, it just describes how people act when they are not constrained by religion, tradition or political theory.

 Bob Kemp 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Slavery far predates capitalism and is hardly absent under communism. In fact it is probably even further instituted there than in any other.

Of course it predates capitalism. It was repositioned to suit the needs of capitalism. Like markets predate capitalism but became integral to it. 

 Bob Kemp 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Your conclusion that you 'don't think capitalism takes any blame for slavery' doesn't really follow from the premise that capitalism works fine without slavery. The point is that it also worked for a while with slavery. (One thing about capitalism that I think we'd agree on is that it is a very flexible system.) 

 Coel Hellier 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> The point is that it also worked for a while with slavery.

True, but it didn't *cause* slavery and so doesn't take any blame for slavery.  In fact capitalism works better without slavery.

In the same way, capitalism "worked for a while with" women not having a vote, but it dodn't *cause* women not having a vote. 

 Bob Kemp 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

The cause and effect relationship is debatable. There may not be a simple direct cause and effect relationship but for a while capitalism and slavery were closely integrated in states like Britain, the US and Holland. Have a look at that paper I linked to. 

We're getting a long way from my initial point, which was that it's an over-simplification to simply dismiss communism as a failure. 

 Coel Hellier 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> it's an over-simplification to simply dismiss communism as a failure. 

To be a success it has to work in the real world, and work well enough even when not fully perfect, and to be pretty robust in the sense of still working well enough even when some things are going wrong -- and to do all that without sufficiently dire consequences that means the overall system fails. 

By that test, communism pretty much is a failure.  And capitalism pretty much is a success. 

 RomTheBear 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Capitalism works a treat as long as most people can indeed get some capital.

Having some capital is great since it allows people to do something else than simply ensuring their own survival, and invest in growth the future.

The problem we have is that we have capitalism but very fewer and fewer people indeed have any capital. So it works for less and less people.

So if we want capitalism to survive (which most people would want, and this is what I would want to) we need to somehow make sure that at least a large number of people have a realistic chance to gain capital. And it also needs to be the case that the capital you gain also somehow reflects your abilities and does not depend only on pure luck.

Post edited at 13:41
 Coel Hellier 19 Nov 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The problem we have is that we have capitalism but very fewer and fewer people indeed have any capital. So it works for less and less people.

No, capitalism works for everyone.  Yes, capital is nice to have, but you don't need it.  You can sell your labour to an employer!  It works!  The stats show that over time the standard of living (even of poorer people) continues to rise, and across the world the fraction of people who are now "middle class" instead of "in poverty" rises substantially.  

 Bob Kemp 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

The question then arises, how long does a system have to run successfully to be a success? Communism Soviet-style eventually ran itself into the ground after a period of relative success.It didn't have the necessary redundancy and adaptability to survive, but for a while it did, and it accomplished some extraordinary things, as well as some absolute horrors. 

(Edit - I meant to add that one of the strengths of capitalism is precisely in the area of redundancy and adaptability.)

Post edited at 13:58
 Bob Kemp 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

A problem with capitalism is that it has a variety of forms. Some of these are virulent and dangerous. 

 Andy Hardy 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Although the wealth of the very richest grows much more quickly than that of the very poorest...

https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1uxMWPY5w3PQfD-WngYeYcBOTPZb0_QG9u...

Massive inequality is nothing new, but equally is hardly a source of stability and happiness for nations.

 Coel Hellier 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Communism Soviet-style eventually ran itself into the ground after a period of relative success.

Success relative to what?   I wouldn't regard the soviet system as ever doing better than the West.

 Bob Kemp 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It's useful to look at the Soviet Union relative to pre-revolutionary Russia, which was essentially mediaeval. 

 RomTheBear 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> No, capitalism works for everyone.  Yes, capital is nice to have, but you don't need it.  You can sell your labour to an employer!  It works!  The stats show that over time the standard of living (even of poorer people) continues to rise, and across the world the fraction of people who are now "middle class" instead of "in poverty" rises substantially.  

I'm not talking about standard of living.

You can have a good standard of living whilst having no stake in your future or that of your community or family. Well fed and well entertained but powerless.

In a capitalist system, capital is power. If the large majority of the population has no capital then they have no power, and they are effectively ruled by a super wealthy elite.

That is why for capitalism to work, you need a strong and large middle class with some capital - such as a house, some saving, or stock. 

 Coel Hellier 19 Nov 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> In a capitalist system, capital is power.

Voting is power also. 

> If the large majority of the population has no capital then they have no power, and they are effectively ruled by a super wealthy elite.

Not if it's a democracy, and most Western capitalist nations are democracies.

 Bob Kemp 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Some democracies are more effective than others. Democratic Audit this year suggest the UK is more First Division than Premier League, and is deteriorating in key areas.

http://www.democraticaudit.com/the-uks-changing-democracy-the-2018-democrat...

 Bob Kemp 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

But you're right to point out that there are other brakes on capitalism. Just not good enough at the moment since the decline of trade unions and '80s deregulation. 

 RomTheBear 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Voting is power also. 

It is powerful if the people you elect have a lot of power. And if they do have too much power then it's not a democracy.

> Not if it's a democracy, and most Western capitalist nations are democracies.

The problem is that national democracies have no sway against global capital. You can have the most perfect democracy it's not going to help if they have no power.

Which in some ways explains why people are increasingly frustrated, want to retreat from globalisation and increasingly vote for authoritarian leaders, they are trying to regain control from a system that strip them of any sway over the course of things.

 

 Coel Hellier 19 Nov 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The problem is that national democracies have no sway against global capital.

That's really not true.  National democracies do have control over their countries.  If they choose to make international agreements (such as trade agreements) that's up to them.

 RomTheBear 19 Nov 2018
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> That's really not true.  National democracies do have control over their countries.  If they choose to make international agreements (such as trade agreements) that's up to them.

Do they ? No politician or state can decide to magically improve people lives, all they can do is tinker on the edges. Only the people themselves can improve their own lives.

And in a capitalist system you do that by having some capital and using it to invest in your future and that of your community.

That's a false choice. Yes you could isolate the country from the world, get poorer, and get authoritarian politicians to control everything on our behalf. That's unfortunately where we are going.

And that sounds a lot like communism.

Much better in my view to have free and open markets, but of course, those have to provide opportunities for the bulk of the population, otherwise they will be rejected in favour of strong authoritarian states.

Critically, capitalism needs free markets and light states to function anyway. And that's the beauty of capitalism isn't it. It frees peoples from their immediate survival needs, so that they can pursue what they want in life instead of having it dictated to them by the state.

Post edited at 16:54
Pan Ron 20 Nov 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

A source of stability and happiness has been the massive increases in wealth and wellbeing in the developing world as they embraced market mechanisms.  Living conditions have improved dramatically in the last few decades as a result of capitalism (chiefly in China).  Warts and all, the market mechanism has done more for humanity in than any other system I could think of.  This is annoying as capitalism can be brutal.  But the alternatives are much worse.

 RomTheBear 20 Nov 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> A source of stability and happiness has been the massive increases in wealth and wellbeing in the developing world as they embraced market mechanisms.  Living conditions have improved dramatically in the last few decades as a result of capitalism (chiefly in China).  Warts and all, the market mechanism has done more for humanity in than any other system I could think of.  This is annoying as capitalism can be brutal.  But the alternatives are much worse.

As usual it's a bit more nuanced. Yes capitalism is a great system provided you set the right balance and limits.

Slavery in the US for ex was an extreme example of unchecked capitalism. You take on people as slaves, and essentially they are a form capital that produce extraordinary returns.

Of course that raised living standard and produced tremendous wealth for many people. But if you were one of those slaves well you would be truly f*cked.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...