Do liberals annoy you?

jkitleft Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:22:27 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

I am young, so I don't know many in my age group who would describe themselves as 'socialists', or 'social democrats'. Most describe themselves as liberals.

What does that mean exactly? They're 'liberal', because they are pro gay-rights, pro-choice, and anti death penalty.

They annoy the hell out of me.



Don't get me wrong, I think gay rights, a woman's right to choose, and the abolishment of the death penalty are incredibly important, and I support all three causes. But to me, social housing, minimum wage, parental leave, redistribution, the fight to end child poverty etc. are more important issues.

I resent being told that the Labour party is more right-wing than the Tories, by 'liberals' who publically admit to being snobs.

These liberals would easily vote fo Cameron: ooh look, he has had a picture taken with a polar bear. There he is with one, wait, TWO(!), gay shadow cabinet ministers. He must be such a progressive then...

You can call yourself left-wing if you come help Labour defend redistribution and equality. You can call yourself left-wing if you come join Labour in defending universal healthcare. You can't call yourself left-wing if you're only claim to liberalism is being 'green', while fanning yourself with industrial sized air conditioning in Whole Foods Market, but not giving a damn about the day to day issues that effect the working and lower middle classes of this country.


Ok, rant over.



tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Do liberals annoy you? | 49 comments (49 topical)

Re: Do liberals annoy you? (#1)

by otware on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 01:55:37 PM GMT

I suspect that most young people describe themselves as liberal for 2 reasons. Firstly, they either have no opinion or no knowledge of economic issues so politically they only pick a side when it comes to these much simpler issues. Secondly, there is a lot of Americanization of our culture and in America left=liberal. When you look at Facebook, for example, until recently they only had set options for your political view and the most 'left' you could choose was 'very liberal'.


Re: As socialists/social democrats (#2)

by AngryVoter on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 02:21:21 PM GMT

I second what Otaware says, through it seems that there's a growing number of Libertarians in the UK who're finding home in the compassionately minded Conservative Party, which throws the question into another mix.

However, yes. I also hate liberals. Largely because they don't seem to attach themselves fully to reality at any one point, thinking that everything can be solved with nice words and a cup of Fair-Trade tea. It's a nasty trend that's managed to eek it's way into our school system at an alarming rate.

  It's causing disciplinary damage, something that those of us who're right-wing would have solved with harsher discipline, and even those on the left would have found something similar to follow.

The "Liberal", however, has managed to eek it's way into a number of sections of the Labour Party, turning it from Social-Democrat to something not very good in my personal opinion.

We've all read the bizarre stories from various newspapers on both sides of the "divide" [Though I've yet to read a Guardian article on the issue, perhaps somebody could furnish me with a link or two?]
doesn't


Re: As socialists/social democrats (#3)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 04:05:01 PM GMT

Most Labour members are 'liberals' in one way or another.

To me, social democracy and social liberalism are of equal importance.


Re: As socialists/social democrats (#4)

by AdamKeir on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 04:12:51 PM GMT

The term liberal annoys me too, such that I refuse to put my political status on FB because it doesn't allow me 'left' or 'social democrat'. That is interesting that your peers are now defining themselves in the 'American' way. I think FB must have a big influence on this since no-one even my age (25) would, I think, use the liberal-conservative spectrum. They would still use the left-right spectrum.

What do people think about the term 'social democrat'? It doesn't appear to be one the Labour party itself has much used or felt comfortable with, and nor is it part of the discourse of other actors, such as the media. This is probably to do with Labour’s history as a democratic socialist party, rather than a social democratic party. But I've always thought the notion of social democracy would be a useful one to (re)introduce; it covers both the 'liberal' elements jkitleft mentions above, married(!) to a redistributive approach to politics and a commitment to equality. Labels are useful things. ‘Social democrat’ would be more powerful than ‘liberal’, which rather misses the point in the British (and European) context.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#6)

by otware on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 05:19:52 PM GMT

I think to a certain extent social democracy might be considered dirty as it is associated with the SDP. A lot of anger there. Personally I do not see myself as a social democrat. I am a democratic socialist. But if Labour people want to describe themselves as social democrats then I have no problem with that. Of course, the meaning of the term has been twisted from its origins.

And no, I don't know of any British person who would use the liberal-conservative spectrum when talking about politics. But certainly until recently on Facebook these were the only options (you can now put whatever party or ideology you want!).


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#12)

by AdamKeir on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 08:27:15 PM GMT

Good point - I am just too young to remember the SDP! and thanks for the tip re FB - I have now got Labour Party displayed :)


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#14)

by Anonymous X on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 11:31:59 PM GMT

I have suspected, as a young'un who wasn't around back then, that modern Labour avoids using the term social-democrat because of how the Gang of Traitors highjacked the term for their SDP. Which is a shame really, as  social-democrat(ic) best describes us.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#21)

by otware on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 03:09:37 PM GMT

I think trying to put a blanket ideology on Labour is not necessarily very helpful, as there are a lot of different strands of left-of-centre, centrist and (dare I say it) centre-right thought going on.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#35)

by alexhilton on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:28:22 PM GMT

They allow free text political staus on facebook now. I'm there as a Socialist


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#7)

by jkitleft on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 05:23:07 PM GMT

Don't get me wrong, many of my positions are liberal. I'm pro gay rights, pro legalising assisted suicide, anti death penalty, and many of my other positions can be annoyingly namby pamby.

I'm a liberal interventionist, though I remember that it was socialists who were far more interventionist in the '30's with regards to fighting fascism. I'm for prison reform. I'm for immigration. I support ending the prohibition on drugs. I support legalising prostitution. I support free trade, as I believe capitalism is a great way of lifting people out of poverty, though it has to be tempered with socialist state policies: I can't support protectionism for the west. There's a name for that. it's called socialism for the rich, and I can't justify protectionism when 90% of the worlds cocoa comes from Africa, but only 4% of the worlds chocolate comes from there.

But, like I have said, we need an active state to help regulate the bad elements of capitalism. We need a housing stock, universal healthcare and education, proper social care and childcare, redistribution etc. We need to make sure that employers can't pay people £1.38 an hour, and can't discriminate against parents or agency workers.

 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#20)

by snowflake5 on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 02:42:53 PM GMT

I've always felt that the labour party has put much more emphasis on égalité and fraternité than liberté, the rational being that you could only achieve liberté by sorting out égalité first, and that the method of achieveing égalité was fraternité! 

Essentially the Labour party believes in the power of the collective (fraternité) to make a difference (see collective medicine in the NHS and collective defence in NATO, two Labour achievements).

However, I think "liberals" have a real problem with the idea of fraternité and collective action. They don't believe in team work or nations pulling together to sort out problems. They have an aversion to the state. But state action is simply voters authorising the govt to do something on behalf of the nation - national teamwork or national brotherhood/solidarity if you like. But even in the current crisis, you see bankers refusing to cut bonuses as their contribution to solving the crisis, while still expecting the ordinary joe/govt to step up to the plate and help out. So much for teamwork to save the nation's banking!

P.S. this is a very good thread jkitleft


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#27)

by jkitleft on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 08:49:10 PM GMT

Well thankyou Snowflake.

Actually, on another thread you made the best socialist argument for a nuclear deterrent I have seen. You argued tht it wasn't a conservative blip in your ideology, but actually an extention of your socialism.

I think what annoys me, is what you have correctly identified as an aversion to the state from liberals. Conservatives want to assume we hate the idea of people being free from the state, and that we see democracy as a necessary evil. Actually, it was us Chartist socialists who argued for enfranchisement for all. And I'm a Scandanavian Social Democrat, and in those societies, there is light touch regulation of the economy, but a high percentage of GDP as tax to help build a more equal society.

The state can enhance liberty. The NHS enhances liberty for those who couldn't be treated for not being able to affor health insurance. And I always see the main difference between liberals and social democrats/socialists, as to whether a collective is better than the individual. Currently, Brown is flexing his social-democratic muscles in declaring war on the spivs, and argueing that the City has a moral obligation to contribute to society through paying their fare share of tax, and not taking irresponsible risks. But I don't know whether a Lib Dem government would be argueing quite the same thing.


[ Parent ]

Do Liberals annoy you? (#5)

by degauntier on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 05:14:16 PM GMT

I call myself liberal, but I resent the appropriation of the term by the Liberal Democrats who are nothing of the sort.  In fact they're nothing at all, just a disparate group across left and right who have two things in common: a distaste for the two major parties and a willingness to sit with people which whom they share nothing in common in order for power.

There is the rub - it is the Labour Party which are actually the true Liberals.  It is Labour that believes in elevating people to where they can genuinely benefit from the freedom which is so important to Liberals.  As we all know, freedom without opportunity is no freedom.


Re: Do Liberals annoy you? (#8)

by jkitleft on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 05:25:00 PM GMT

Funnily enough, I was asked to define socialism in Politics A level class yesterday. Here's my definition:

"Providing the security for people to be free."


[ Parent ]

Re: Do Liberals annoy you? (#9)

by AngryVoter on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 05:31:11 PM GMT

That's an unusual oxymoron on the surface but I do understand what you mean by it. Building up the necessary state to be able to let people go about their daily lives.

It's almost a shame your version isn't applied, Jkitleft.


[ Parent ]

Re: Do Liberals annoy you? (#15)

by Anonymous X on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 11:33:00 PM GMT

Positive liberty, that's the term, I think.


[ Parent ]

Re: Do Liberals annoy you? (#10)

by otware on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 05:41:17 PM GMT

Are you doing AS or A2?


[ Parent ]

Re: Do Liberals annoy you? (#24)

by doctordunc on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 04:10:59 PM GMT

Yes - that is positive liberalism or welfare liberalism (which I accept is virtually interchangeable with social democracy) and there's an element of social contract liberalism in there too, which was quite influential on New Labour (the whole rights and responsibilities thing).

The problem for me, as far as a definition of socialism goes, is the word 'providing' (socialism is a bottom-up philosophy or it's nothing) and the vagueness of the word 'free'.  For me socialism is real democracy - it's taking democracy beyond simply having an indirect role in the legislative process to demanding (rather than providing!) popular control of all those institutions that have power over us (including those institutions that most liberals would deem immune from democratic control, such as our workplaces and land).


[ Parent ]

Re: Do Liberals annoy you? (#28)

by jkitleft on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 08:50:27 PM GMT

Very true.


[ Parent ]

Re: Liberal Party v Lib Dems / Tories MK2 (#11)

by john frost on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 06:23:01 PM GMT

Great post!
The real  Liberal Party does debate those issues and express their policy clearly on gender and other matters explicitly on their web site. They still exist are much the same as they always were. The Liberal Democrats are just Tories with less Party Conference discipline. A quick look at both web sites and a trip round wikkipaedia will help. Histrically the real Liberal Party was reduced to 4 members by the 1960's having ripped itself apart over Votes for Women WW1 and the Irish Question they were never taken seriously again. Lloyd George's daughter joined Labour and they never recovered.  
When millitant had it's hands round Labour's throat. The SDP later Lib Dems seized their chance and there were significant defections from the Liberal Party and together with right wing Labour opportunists a sort of  classless version of the Tories was born. I believe the real Liberal Party are worthy opponents but the Labour Cooperative Party alliance does it better. You should join the Cooperative Party and Labour it is encouraged we are very good at this green stuff. Visit the Cooperative Party web site you will be amazed.


Re: do liberals annoy you? (#13)

by Anonymous X on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 11:26:10 PM GMT

Unless I am discussing North American politics, I use "Liberal" in the European sense of the term, i.e. to describe the secular, pro-market Right, not the centre-left. I am a pedant using political terminology in the correct fashion.

 I really didn't like it during my time at university, when students and a tutor or two almost exclusively used the Americanised definition of "liberal". (Unfortunately, the politically active left-leaning students even considered the LibDems to be the party to be in, such was their strong association with "liberal" meaning left. The term social-democrat was unknown to them.)

However, I'll admit there is a slight grey area in Britain, with the early Labour party being influenced by radical-liberalism. In the modern day, even though I dislike them, you have to admit that the LibDems are hardly as right-wing as other major European liberal parties like the German FDP or Dutch VVD...

 Liberals do annoy me though, to answer the question in the subject title.


Re: do liberals annoy you? (#16)

by degauntier on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 12:17:35 AM GMT

That's a very patronising summary - since the question was "what does liberty mean to you?".  And your pedantry is misplaced - since what you describe is not liberal (Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry; or favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded) but libertarian (advocating the maximisation of individual rights and the minimisation of the state, believing in free will).


[ Parent ]

Re: do liberals annoy you? (#17)

by DevonChap on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 08:14:03 AM GMT

In the European politcial history context liberal is such a wide term as to be almost meaningless. There is the liberalism of John Stuart Mill which is very much based on non-interference in others' personal affairs, to the liberalism of Rawls that move to an almost extreme form of equality.

There are differnet shades of opinion for almost every voter. Personally I like John Stuart Mill liberals and can't stand the Rawls ones. As for Liberal Democrats, they are just the none of the above party and will position themselves wherever the polictal wind takes them. Pah!


[ Parent ]

Re: do liberals annoy you? (#19)

by degauntier on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 12:38:04 PM GMT

I appreciate that, which is why I tried to draw a disticintion between "being liberal", and "supporting a libertatian political perspective".  Both claim the epitaph of "liberal", but I believe that the latter debases the term.

In 1990, an influential group came together within the CoE to form the "Affirming Catholicism" group.  This was not to undermine Roman Catholicism but to reclaim for the CoE the Catholic Tradition of inclusiveness and progressivenes.  I'd like to see something within the Labour Party - affirming Liberalism:
"By our principles of social justice and opportunity for all, we give all people the liberty and freedom to direct their own destiny." 

That is real, positive, pro-active liberalism, which neither the Tories nor the Lib Dems can lay any sort of claim to.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats, do liberals an (#18)

by SW on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 09:17:27 AM GMT

I think the history of Labour has entwined strands of socialism with strands of liberalism and which gives us the compromising, sometimes contradictory party that we love(!). Kinnock was warned to stay away from gay rights as it alienated the pensioners. After initial caution, the Blair government was very bold on gay rights and found that it did not cause mass hysteria or affect people's voting (except gay voters of course). However raising tax rates for the highest-paid is a taboo that New Labour has not dared to go near in case the country should faint in panic. Is this because Blair was much more of a liberal than a socialist?


Re: As socialists/social democrats, do liberals an (#22)

by otware on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 03:17:29 PM GMT

Interesting question. I am not sure whether the government has refused to raise taxes on the rich because they are scared or because they genuinely do not agree with it. My hunch is that it's a but of both, with the more left-leaning ministers being drowned out by the hardline right.

As for whether Blair was more liberal than socialist, it's a difficult one. He certainly wasn't very socialist, no doubt about that, but he did introduce some good leftist policy to be fair to him. But he wasn't exactly liberal either. ID cards and anti-terror cancel out the gay rights and hunting ban a bit. 


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats, do liberals an (#23)

by swatantra on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 03:24:10 PM GMT

Lib Dems annoy you? Not half. But not as much as the Greens and our own far left wing. The Greens take votes from us and the latter drive voters away from us.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats, do liberals an (#25)

by doctordunc on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 04:11:49 PM GMT

Piss off


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats, do liberals an (#26)

by lastword on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 07:17:47 PM GMT

I am proud to be a socialist, a social democrat and a social liberal.  They are not mutually exclusive.


[ Parent ]

Do liberals annoy you? (#29)

by talkingcats on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 12:03:40 AM GMT

A lot of confusion here about what a liberal is; and not surprsingly, as it is used in many different ways.  Thatcher was a liberal - an economic, nineteenth century free trade, free market liberal.  Then there are social liberals, who take anti-authoritarian stances on matters of law and order and questions of private morality.  With respect to this sort of liberalism, Labour *is* substantially to the right of the present Conservative party, with, for example, its pointless obession with ID Cards and its attempt to interfere with the private sexuality of adults with the 'extreme' porn ban.  Then there is the American usage, 'liberal = left wing', which must be the stupidest usage and is not worth further debate.

The authoritarianism of the modern Labour party is curious and seems to have developed hand in hand with its economic liberalism and brownnosing of the City.  I guess it started with the desire not to be outflanked by the tories on any 'law'n'order' issue but has now taken on a toxic momentum all of its own.  Some of you guys actually believe this shit.  Though of course Labour has always had its share of puritans and curtain-twitchers but they do rather seem to be in the ascendant at the moment. 

As for myself, as a former Labour voter, I regard the social authoritarianism and fiscal liberalism of the Labour party with equal dismay.  Still who gives a fuck about widening inequality when you can file an ASBO against your neighbour for not cutting his grass.


Re: Do liberals annoy you? (#30)

by lastword on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:20:39 AM GMT

"The authoritarianism of the modern Labour party is curious and seems to have developed hand in hand with its economic liberalism and brownnosing of the City.  I guess it started with the desire not to be outflanked by the tories on any 'law'n'order' issue but has now taken on a toxic momentum all of its own".

I couldn't agree more.

Have you thought about joining Compass? 

You will find both current and former members of the Labour party who share a common belief in protecting and promoting the values of social liberalism alongside social democracy and socialism.

www.compassonline.org.uk 


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#31)

by alexhilton on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 12:31:59 PM GMT

I think there's often a false division created between Socialism and Liberalism.

As Socialists, we believe the state the executive of the collective will of the people. For that to be true, we also have to be Democrats, or else the State becomes the colllective will of an empowered elite instead.

Also as Socialists, we have an economics that views people as assets rather than as a burden. This is where we are a bit like Libertarians in that a society that discriminates against people on the grounds of sex, race, sexuality, class, disability or anything else (other than merit), is a society that is failing to take full economic advantage of its human assets.

But there is an old-style Socialism - a near dead dinosaur which is often openly sexist, xenophobic and homophobic and which defends closed shops and protectionist economic policies.

But those dinosaurs just got it wrong. They were of a day when the Class War was a war between the working class and the elite. When closed shops and xenophobic, protectionist economics were short-sighted attempts to save the workers from threats that could result in poverty and starvation.

But it should only have ever been a war against the class system. It should have been a battle for social mobility.

So yes, the liberal fundamentals are, in my mind, wholly compatible with Socialism - even indivisible. But equally, we must be aggressively pro-democracy, or we risk becoming the blinkered elite that we have despised for a hundred years.

Bugger, did I just do the plot of Animal Farm?


Re: As socialists/social democrats (#32)

by lastword on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:33:28 PM GMT

It's brilliant we're having this debate now.   

When I did A Level politics, I remember studying about the ground breaking Beveridge Report.

Freedom from 'WIDIS' was the key to everything Labour then aimed to achieve in that critical post-war era.

If you'll recall, Beverdige called for:

Freedom from Want

Freedom from Idleness

Freedom from Disease

Freedom from Illness

Freedom from Squalor

Therefore, social liberalism, which promotes freedom is inherently linked to social democracy and socialism because it is also trying to stand up for those who are not "free" to live the kind of positive life every human being should merely because they were born into poverty or with an illness, etc.

When we start trying to take away people's freedoms and oppress them we (Labour) are betraying our ancestors - the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the slavery abolition movement, the suffragettes, the soliders who fought in World Wars I and II and everyone else who has sacrified to protect our freedom from tyranny.

This is why I am against 42 days.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#33)

by DevonChap on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 09:11:09 PM GMT

And of course Beveridge was a Liberal MP.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#34)

by lastword on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:02:19 PM GMT

Implemented by Atlee and Bevin! A liberal MP writing a report endorsed and promoted by a Labour government is a perfect example of the principles of social liberalism and socialism working together at their best. 



[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#36)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:26:29 PM GMT

Just a pity the current LibDems seem to have forgotten this part of their past.

The LibDems of today should just divide and collapse. We'll take the bulk of the members (the social democrats and social liberals) and the Tories can take those who are more inclined towards Thatcherism.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#42)

by jkitleft on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 04:35:29 PM GMT

Agreed. Despite the fact that people who are simply social liberals annoy me, I recognise that liberalism has a very important role to play even in our socialist party. We're the party that got rid of censorship, the death penalty and legalised homosexuality and divorce. We're the party that can best fight against the protectionist right. Jacques Chirac said that he had never been spoken so rudely to, when Blair was trying to convince him of what great results for Africa would come from dropping agricultural subsidies for the west aka socialism for the rich.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#44)

by talkingcats on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 01:05:29 AM GMT

We're the party that got rid of censorship, the death penalty and legalised homosexuality and divorce.

Unfortunately you are now going rapidly in the other direction.  The law that makes the possession of 'extreme porn' a criminal offence is every bit as reactionary as the criminalisation of homosexuality.  It's just a different sexual minority that is now being targetted.  Ironically it might be gay practitioners of BDSM who are the first to find themselves caught in this new moral panic.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#46)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:27:21 PM GMT

Unfortunately, you're right. That was a shameful bit of legislation.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#37)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:29:52 PM GMT

As Socialists, we believe the state the executive of the collective will of the people. For that to be true, we also have to be Democrats, or else the State becomes the colllective will of an empowered elite instead.

Also as Socialists, we have an economics that views people as assets rather than as a burden. This is where we are a bit like Libertarians in that a society that discriminates against people on the grounds of sex, race, sexuality, class, disability or anything else (other than merit), is a society that is failing to take full economic advantage of its human assets.

But there is an old-style Socialism - a near dead dinosaur which is often openly sexist, xenophobic and homophobic and which defends closed shops and protectionist economic policies.

But those dinosaurs just got it wrong. They were of a day when the Class War was a war between the working class and the elite. When closed shops and xenophobic, protectionist economics were short-sighted attempts to save the workers from threats that could result in poverty and starvation.

Agreed.

It's the 'old socialists' in the party who I have the biggest problem with. Their love of protectionism and bigotry is more suited to the BNP than the Labour party.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#38)

by e10rifles on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 04:18:21 PM GMT

Well done, stupid comment of the week.

The relationship between employers and employees hasn't changed. The words used to con people might have, the spurious designations of 'manager' and the outsourcing of useful work to poorer countries with poorer labour standards, but the capacity for legalised labour theft has never gone away, nor has the preponderance of so-called 'labour' activists to explain or excuse it away.

Bigotry indeed.

It wasn't 'old socialists' who unleashed the massacre of Iraq on the world.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#39)

by alexhilton on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 03:47:09 AM GMT

But international solidarity has always been at the core of socialism.

This is a very uncomfortable arena for us because our republicanism is often portrayed as unpatriotic. Yet we really shouldn't have any patriotic sense towards a state that systematically betrays its working class. Conversely, we ought to have enormous resonance with the working class in any other country - including Iraq, where they were being mightily stuffed by a bloody dictator.

Now I was against the Iraq war but on the grounds that I felt we should push diplomacy to its furthets extent before considering going to war. But If TB had explicitly said it was a war of liberation I would have had far more difficulty opposing it. Likewise if we had supported action in Zimbabwe or Burma under similar grounds in recent years.

A Socialist Government in Britain should be recognised by its use of aid, trade and diplomacy to better the conditions for working people anywhere in the world - particularly now that we have globalised.

I moved my Norwich Union pension to another company because they outsourced their call centre to India. I also closed my Fidelity ISA because the company gave money to the Conservative Party. But I'm just small operator in that market. The markets don't cease working because we don't like it. They stop working when they fail. So protectionist economic policies are provably, mathematically, harmful to all workers everywhere, even when in the short term they might look like they benefit "our" workers at the expense of foreign workers.

Oh it's late - i know what i mean. feel free to email me for more coherent dialogue

Alex
alexhilton@gmail.com
07985 384 859


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#43)

by jkitleft on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 04:55:39 PM GMT

No it wasn't, but I can line up Iraqi socialists and communists who are very grateful for the invasion, despite my opposition. As Alex says above, international solidarity is important. If Brown was to propose tomorrow that he would invade Burma, and overthrow the Junta so that Aung Sun Suu Kyi could take her rightful place as PM, it's difficult to see how I could be against this.

What stopped me being for the war in Iraq was the lack of multilateral support. Our whole foreign policy is normally based on multilateralism. Our support for NATO, a collective nuclear deterrent (with multilateral disarmament), and the multilateral efforts in Afghanistan which diluted the corporatist agenda of the US, and also in Kosova, East Timor and Sierra Leone is based on multilateralism.

When people say "I know Saddam was bad, but...", they make it sound as if Saddam Hussein was convicted twice for petty theft. The man killed up to 2 million people. We need to get out but by truely commiting ourselves to democracy. We should allow the Iraqis a referendum to see if they still want us. Then we shoul allow Nouri Al-Maliki to implement his proposals to desegregate Iraq. Then, we must allow the Iraqis to have the original social-democratic constitution they wanted, with full ownership of oil.

Where I disagree with the left-wing neo-cons is the idea that George Bush is secretly a liberal, commander in chief of the armed wing of Amnesty International, with the 52nd Airbourne wing being the International Brigades. Now, there have been recantations from David Aaronovitch, Norman Geras, and from Johann Hari. Christopher Hitchens is coming back to the left, as he endorsed Obama this week. But Nick Cohen is becoming more mental by the day: he criticises Labour for giving in to the super-rich, but then hails the Tories IHT plans as progressive. He says the left has aligned with the far-right, yet he has aligned with George Bush. I first became a fan of Hari after reading his brilliant picking apart of "What's Left?" Not Nick Cohen is one answer. I wish Bush was serious about democracy, but the neo-cons have never been, and Cohen is still stuck in the mindframe, as Hari says, of February 2003 where he believes George Galloway with his foul dictatorship worshipping represents the mainstream left.

I'm a liberal interventionist in short, but who thinks the idea that Bush is secretly one too, is sadly laughable.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#45)

by talkingcats on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 09:49:44 AM GMT

If Brown was to propose tomorrow that he would invade Burma, and overthrow the Junta so that Aung Sun Suu Kyi could take her rightful place as PM, it's difficult to see how I could be against this.

Then I think you have learnt nothing from the disaster of Iraq.  You are likely to provoke a civil war that will cost the lives of hundreds of thouands if not millions of civilians.  This government in charge of foreign policy has been like a ten-year-old operating a rocket launcher.  It knows what it wants to do but is utterly clueless as to the other consequences of its actions. 


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#47)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:31:32 PM GMT

Erm...actually e10 I think you'll find I wasn't referring to people like you.

For me the socialists on the left of the party can be categorised into two groups:

The old socialists who believe in old fashioned social-conservative values, anti-Europe, protectionist etc.

The new socialists who are more socially liberal, pro-Europe etc. People like McDonnell would fit in here.

I disagree with both groups usually, but at least the 'new socialists' don't hold repulsive views.

I would assume you fit into the latter category. So don't take offence when I wasn't even trying to offend you.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#48)

by e10rifles on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:09:01 PM GMT

Who are the old socialists then?

I've never heard this distinction made before, so forgive me if I mistook it for the usual lefty-bashing on here.


[ Parent ]

Re: As socialists/social democrats (#49)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:41:47 PM GMT

I don't know of many examples in the PLP, but I'm sure there are some.

On here, the one and only 'adwilliams' would fall into that category.


[ Parent ]

Re: Do liberals annoy you? (#40)

by johnpreid on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:55:06 PM GMT

One person who annoys me is Yasmin Alihalah Brown in two colums in The Idependent first she said people who voted bnp were scum adn compared teh bnp to terrorists tehn she said young people these days were racist adnvoted bnp, in both examples she probably encouraged many people who aren't racist but get fed up of being called it ,to join the bnp, its not that I mind heard comments it juist she refuses to believe she encourages people to vote bnp saying it


Re: Do liberals annoy you? (#41)

by DarrellG on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:56:27 PM GMT

Going back to the original point the answer has to be no...in fact i see the secterian hostility between the two camps as pretty fruitless...i would only describe myself as being economically socialist in any case...socially I would say I am a liberal....


Do liberals annoy you? | 49 comments (49 topical)