The next generation

swears

preppy-kei
Is that necessarily a problem, though? Why should people's opinions conform to pre-existing paradigms of political alignment? If those paradigms are obsolete, we need new ones to describe what people think these days, don't we?

Yeah, sure. But don't you think it's at least important for people to understand where these divisions come from before we try to work past them? Besides, the current political climate is a result of that left/right binary: Don't think you would've had Thatcher's rise to power without there being socialist tendencies in the UK for her to challenge in the first place, for example.

I think that the idea that bigots are necessarily "right-wing" whereas open-minded people are necesarily "left-wing" is old hat and something of a distraction from the real issues.

Perhaps, but hasn't the left in the UK had more of a history of opposing bigotry and discrimination through movements like The Anti-nazi League or Rock Against Racism?
 

vimothy

yurp
From what has been said here, the next generation are moving down and to the right

Well, I certainly hope so, but I haven't seen very much evidence of that. Quite the opposite, in fact, where they are moving at all.

Perhaps, but hasn't the left in the UK had more of a history of opposing bigotry and discrimination through movements like The Anti-nazi League or Rock Against Racism?

Are they really "left" platforms? I mean, can't you be for economic freedom and cultural freedom at the same time? Some people on the right, e.g., are pro-immigration, and some are anti-immigration. Some people on the left are anti-immigration, and some are pro-immigration. It all depends. I remember when I first started to read libertarian / classical liberal stuff -- the idea that people were on the right and yet not monstrous arseholes was quite a shock, but it's worth considering, unless you want your predjudices dictating your economic and political votes.
 

swears

preppy-kei
Vim: I know classical liberals like Hayek are not automatically racist, evil or even right wing at all. "Why I am not a conservative, etc..."
But I see the most dissent against intolerance coming from the left, maybe they are just shouting the loudest.
 

Pestario

tell your friends
Well, I certainly hope so, but I haven't seen very much evidence of that. Quite the opposite, in fact, where they are moving at all.

I was just expressing the immediate impression I got from what people have said in this thread. To declare my political leanings I would like things down and to the left (surprise surprise).
 

vimothy

yurp
Vim: I know classical liberals like Hayek are not automatically racist, evil or even right wing at all. "Why I am not a conservative, etc..."
But I see the most dissent against intolerance coming from the left, maybe they are just shouting the loudest.

I know what you mean, but I think it's bit more complicated. For instance, Gary Bushell's English Democrats are actually pretty generic, and hardly "right-wing" as I would describe it. That is, they say Nu-Labour-ish stuff like, "A healthy economy is a mixed economy." My uncles are all staunch republicans and pretty sectarian and bigoted in many ways, but they are very much (well-off) leftists, as are most of the fuckwits on the other side of the divide.

If you're defining "dissent against intolerance" as going on marches and handing out flyers, then for the last thirty years or so, most of the people in this country who went on the marches probably voted Labour or described themselves as leftists. I think the left has a reasonably good history of living up to its own predjudices, and (drawing a diplomatic veil over the less pleasant aspects of leftist "dissent" in this country) where those predjudices are worthwhile (e.g. anti-racism), then its a good thing. But I don't think that there's anything essentially leftist about being against racism.

[There's also the complications of recent years, where it's not obvious to the "left" whether it should support religious conservatives because they form part of an "ethnic minority" or whether it should attack them because they're religious conservatives.]

I was just expressing the immediate impression I got from what people have said in this thread. To declare my political leanings I would like things down and to the left (surprise surprise).

Not been very impressed with socialist libertarianism, to be honest, but it's definitely better than authoritarian communism.
 

vimothy

yurp
I was just expressing the immediate impression I got from what people have said in this thread. To declare my political leanings I would like things down and to the left (surprise surprise).

Actuallly, it seems to me that most people are generally moving to the centre-left. The harder, radical left has lost whatever plot it once had, so that it's basically just radicalism without a political programme, and therefore not very relevant.
 

Pestario

tell your friends
[There's also the complications of recent years, where it's not obvious to the "left" whether it should support religious conservatives because they form part of an "ethnic minority" or whether it should attack them because they're religious conservatives.]

To be OT for a second...

I find this very interesting. Are you talking about Christian Conservatives?
 

vimothy

yurp
To be OT for a second...

I find this very interesting. Are you talking about Christian Conservatives?

Err, no... I was thinking about Muslim conservatives. But your question is interesting -- I expect that, given the very large numbers of Christian and socially conservative migrants from the "Global South", this will be an issue in the not too distant future.
 

Pestario

tell your friends
Ah, of course. I was thinking more along the lines of how far conservative religious views can be accommodated in the public realm, e.g. should Christian adoption charities be able to turn down gay couples etc.
 

S-Mac

Active member
I think this is what the Tories are betting on with cuddly Cameron.

I know a few young economic conservatives (or "liberals", depending on how you define that) who advocate lower taxes, scaling back the state, etc... But they are against prejudice, pro-immigration, pro-gay marriage, very "open minded". The problem is that everything has become so personalised and depoliticised that people can have beliefs that they thet wouldn't be able to classify as left or right wing anyway.

The association of economic liberalism with social conservatism is really just a product of politics, beginning during the Reagan era in the US, rather than of an actual ideological standpoint. Neo-Conservatives needed an apparently sound economic agenda to appeal to a whole chunk of middle-class voters, while Neo-liberals needed a moral agenda to appeal to the conservative base which was their only real political option, since most left-leaning voters were obviously attached to state intervention.

The two positions are extremely contradictory and are quite frequently at odds with each other, since conservatives tend to want more government/legal intervention into peoples private lives (fertility rights, drugs, etc) which neo-liberals are in principle opposed to.

Happily for them, a shared love for capital accumulation, and hysteric opposition to anything smelling remotely of communsim, takes prioity above everything glossing over the myriad contradictions for the sake of political power.

So being economically conservative/liberal and socially liberal is really a more internally consistent position.

The problem for the the political 'left' is that most are also scared shared shitless of communsim or any truely radical ideology, and a desire to appear hip-to-the-economic-groove neccessitates making concessions to neo-liberal economics (being 'realistic' about the economy) while retaining some socialist principles, leading them more towards the centre, where other types of contradictions abound.

[Edit]

From my own observations (of middle-class college students), for most youngish folk 'communism' of any sort is completely off the agenda for all but a minority of students and activists. Most are quite aware of the 'evils of capitalism' but at the same time cant imagine anything else but a capitalist economy being possible, leading to two general ideological positions (if they're bothered to take one at all); fully-fledged libertarianism, believing that if all barriers to 'freedom' are removed, a Van Hayekian/Friedmanian Utopia of a grand markt-equilibrium awaits; or a sort of rearticulated Third Way, with the negative effects free-markets balanced by some sensible social policies.
 
Last edited:
N

nomadologist

Guest
The association of economic liberalism with social conservatism is really just a product of politics, beginning during the Reagan era in the US, rather than of an actual ideological standpoint. Neo-Conservatives needed an apparently sound economic agenda to appeal to a whole chunk of middle-class voters, while Neo-liberals needed a moral agenda to appeal to the conservative base which was their only real political option, since most left-leaning voters were obviously attached to state intervention.

The two positions are extremely contradictory and are quite frequently at odds with each other, since conservatives tend to want more government/legal intervention into peoples private lives (fertility rights, drugs, etc) which neo-liberals are in principle opposed to.

Happily for them, a shared love for capital accumulation, and hysteric opposition to anything smelling remotely of communsim, takes prioity above everything glossing over the myriad contradictions for the sake of political power.

So being economically conservative/liberal and socially liberal is really a more internally consistent position.

The problem for the the political 'left' is that most are also scared shared shitless of communsim or any truely radical ideology, and a desire to appear hip-to-the-economic-groove neccessitates making concessions to neo-liberal economics (being 'realistic' about the economy) while retaining some socialist principles, leading them more towards the centre, where other types of contradictions abound.

[Edit]

From my own observations (of middle-class college students), for most youngish folk 'communism' of any sort is completely off the agenda for all but a minority of students and activists. Most are quite aware of the 'evils of capitalism' but at the same time cant imagine anything else but a capitalist economy being possible, leading to two general ideological positions (if they're bothered to take one at all); fully-fledged libertarianism, believing that if all barriers to 'freedom' are removed, a Van Hayekian/Friedmanian Utopia of a grand markt-equilibrium awaits; or a sort of rearticulated Third Way, with the negative effects free-markets balanced by some sensible social policies.


This was a truly great post, though I think those who are scared of communism are obviously wrong. Grandmarkt equilibrium? Please. The market thrives on instability.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
As someone who has experienced life under Communism (Romania), I'm not particularly keen on more of the same either.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
There have been problems in a lot of communist countries historically, yes. Have there not been problems in *every* system of government historically?

If communism were no real threat to capitalism, America and most of the rest of the western world would not have spent so many years on McCarthyism and so many dollars and lives on fighting its mere existence.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
As someone who has experienced life under Communism (Romania), I'm not particularly keen on more of the same either.

Have a very good friend from Romania, and one psychiatrist, and neither had much of a problem with Communism--in fact my friend expresses nostalgia for her childhood in a communist state at times...

What was your experience like?
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Have a very good friend from Romania, and one psychiatrist, and neither had much of a problem with Communism--in fact my friend expresses nostalgia for her childhood in a communist state at times...

What was your experience like?

Hmm...super-long queues for heavily rationed poor quality food; 60W light bulbs and no brighter permitted; government propaganda on telly every day and little else; restrictions on cultural imports; persecution of dissenters; signing in to police stations; not being able to speak one's mind about anything; destruction of hundreds of villages and forced relocation of peasants; flattening of vast areas of the capital city with great loss of cultural heritage; erection of vast, pointless monuments to the leader's ego; ludicrous academic promotion of leader's wife...it goes on and on and on...The country's back was broken by Communism (and this is a place that has the natural resources to be very strong: fertile land, oil, sea and mountains for tourism...)

My mum (Romanian side of the family) treats Western friends of mine who might praise Communism with undisguised, sad contempt.

Your friends' views are odd.
 
Last edited:

S-Mac

Active member
As someone who has experienced life under Communism (Romania), I'm not particularly keen on more of the same either.

I doubt anyone would want more of that.

But it's precisely this instant conflation of the term communism with the specifics of Soviet repressive authoritarianism that makes people so scared of giving it any serious thought.

But there is no essential link between a form of social organisation based around the commune, in one way or another, and authritarianism. Just as there is no essential link between capitalism and freedom or democracy (as contempoary China and Russia are showing us, and to a lesser extent the revocation of human rights in the UK and US).

So much time and energy has been expended on forging an inherent theoretical link between communism and repressive authoritariansim, and next to none on developing a workable alternative to capitalism or repressive forms of Communism.

And for what its worth (and at the risk of turning this discussion into a Monthy Python sketch), my mother's family couldn't afford decent, food, housing, lighting or heating, but instead of being able to identify the structures which put them in such a situation, and being able to attribute a name to it and oppose it, it was simply accepted as 'the way things were'. She is highly contemptuous of anyone who is in favour of preserving massive social inequality or suggests that it might be a 'neccessary evil' for the sake of 'a dynamic economy', 'economic efficiency' or 'wealth generation'.
 
Last edited:

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
But there is no essential link between a form of social organisation based around the commune, in one way or another, and authritarianism.

Fine - you set up your commune with like-minded people and then seek to expand it for what you presume to be the good of the masses, whilst doing so implicitly or explicitly agreeing to do things a certain way. Unfortunately, a pesky bastard like me decides that your rules are rubbish and, to boot, I have something to offer that your commune would really like (so I can't just be ignored) - how are you going to make me toe the line or ensure that your rules aren't bent for the sake of convenience?

This conundrum always seems to stump my idealist communist-minded buddies.

Reminding them of the dysfunctional train wreck of their personal lives can also serve as a reminder of the difficulty of putting their communal ideas into practice (ie. creating harmony amongst men).
 
Last edited:
N

nomadologist

Guest
Fine - you set up your commune with like-minded people and then seek to expand it for what you presume to be the good of the masses, whilst doing so implicitly or explicitly agreeing to do things a certain way. Unfortunately, a pesky bastard like me decides that your rules are rubbish and, to boot, I have something to offer that your commune would really like (so I can't just be ignored) - how are you going to make me toe the line or ensure that your rules aren't bent for the sake of convenience?

This conundrum always seems to stump my idealist communist-minded buddies.

If you're not interested in making decisions that are based on the mutual good of the "commune", and disagree with the form of government proposed by others within the organization, then you can always leave. Why should you continue to benefit from the organization if you fundamentally disagree with its precepts?

Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Hmm...super-long queues for heavily rationed poor quality food; 60W light bulbs and no brighter permitted; government propaganda on telly every day and little else; restrictions on cultural imports; persecution of dissenters; signing in to police stations; not being able to speak one's mind about anything; destruction of hundreds of villages and forced relocation of peasants; flattening of vast areas of the capital city with great loss of cultural heritage; erection of vast, pointless monuments to the leader's ego; ludicrous academic promotion of leader's wife...it goes on and on and on...The country's back was broken by Communism (and this is a place that has the natural resources to be very strong: fertile land, oil, sea and mountains for tourism...)

My mum (Romanian side of the family) treats Western friends of mine who might praise Communism with undisguised, sad contempt.

Your friends' views are odd.

Romania now is hardly utopia. There were people who did better under communism there than they would have otherwise. I imagine those are the types who are nostalgic for it.

But yes, I agree with S-Mac, let's not conflate the USSR and its likeminded authoritarian partnership regimes with all or any form of communism.
 
Top