Ukip MP

[Sprout]

It's like trying to stamp out football hooliganism by hospitalising hooligans. It may be effective but you lose the idealogical argument by becoming what you are ostensibly against.

I'm pretty sure if UKIP, the EDL and the BNP had the same reach and publicity as the major parties, they'd lose themselves the voters in droves. It seems people aren't really sure what the UKIP's aims are, aside from leaving Europe, and so consider them the lesser of 2/6 evils. "Europe is bad" seems to be the only close to tangible idea they have, but their economic policies are downright disgraceful, with funding cuts to vital services that would shock Thatcher even if we were at all-out war.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

The situations you describe are responses to actual violence - that's a whole other matter.

Except it's not. There is no such thing as a non-violent EDL/BNP/NF march or rally. These people deliberately set up their marches and rallies in provocative areas. EG, Brick Lane. Choose your Asian/black area. Violence is what these people seek. But of course they seek to be on the 'winning side'. Their optimum result is to take control of these areas. EG Luton.

Smash their brains in. Because the alternative is blood spilt on minorities sides. Give in, and watch Hitlerism take over.

 

[Vurtual]

I mostly agree - these marches are usually sort of tribal affairs where both sides go for a ruck (though the anti side defensively). The amount of football 'hooligans' that attend on the 'right' side ensures it'll get a bit punchy. I'm for non-violence in general, but as shambles said defending victims is different.

It's difficult, because I agree in freedom to hold whatever ideas you want (outside of incitement etc) and treating people equally under the law; but i think at the least i want to recognise the difference between radical left and radical right wing politics - to me the radical right seems inherently violent (i'm thinking more golden dawn/svoboda/NF than edl), while the radical left sometimes uses violence, not from principle but as a means to an equitable end, however misguided in practice. The right's equitable end, usually only happens when some outgroup has been got rid of.

I grew up with the societal disgust of hitler nazis and facsism, which is a form of political discrimination, but one i quite like. That disgust is still there (if mostly for some nazi cartoon with onerous soundtrack on 'yesterday'), but it seems it's fraying around the edges, so previously verboten ideas get more and more normalised. Like eg think about how similar what some of our mainstream right wing media and politicians say about muslims is to hitler's stuff about the jews in his early years.

 

[Shambles]

Except it's not. There is no such thing as a non-violent EDL/BNP/NF march or rally. These people deliberately set up their marches and rallies in provocative areas.

I don't dispute that for one minute. What I am disputing is that every person on that march intends to take it to violence. We all know a lot do - we all know a lot don't. The latter may be misguided and not exactly people many of us would wish to associate with but they are not crossing the line into violence. It's when entire marches are having bricks and shit lobbed at them it pisses me off. That's indiscriminate violence and there's no possible way of knowing you'll hit "the right" people. They make a point of taking whole families with young kids on those things (EDL specifically, BNP too to an extent - NF are boot boys and up for a fight all the time as far as I can tell). Yes they are probably doing it for reasons other than purely to take the kiddies on a nice day out - it's indoctrination and it's a bad idea given those things inevitably do kick off in places. But if we have free speech folk can't be preempting the violence cos that makes both sides as bad as each other.

Once the section that are there for a scrap make their move they become fair game cos they started it and they are the aggressors. We all know a section will kick off and run rampage. Much as it would be nice to prevent that happening nobody can cos that's not the way minor rioting works. What's with the indiscriminate missile throwing? How does that look anything but bad? How does that help anybody feel sympathetic to what I suspect we all believe to be the "right" way of looking at things? Just makes them look as bad - or even worse sometimes cos they do start it - as the people they protest against.

I'm not defending the EDL or any other similar group - surely there's no doubt about my political leaning at this stage? The only aspect I'm objecting to is pre-emptive attacks and indiscriminate acts of violence. That's what "they" do. "We" should know better or we're as ignorant as they are. I'm not saying people shouldn't protest and defend against the pricks all the way. I'm saying do it right. Do it with some sense. It's those EDL/BNP/NF/C18 type groups that are infamous for mindless racism and violence. They love to play the victim. When the more moderate, non-violent (in the groups that are not out and out violent anyway) members are being targeted in exactly the same way as the hardcore scumbags they have legitimate complaint to argue victimisation by the extremist left. That only helps their cause making the whole thing counter-productive. That's what I object to cos I actually do support the left(ish) causes and hate to see them become no better than boot boys with Che Guevara t-shirts.

 

[Sammy G]

I mostly agree - these marches are usually sort of tribal affairs where both sides go for a ruck (though the anti side defensively). The amount of football 'hooligans' that attend on the 'right' side ensures it'll get a bit punchy. I'm for non-violence in general, but as shambles said defending victims is different.

It's difficult, because I agree in freedom to hold whatever ideas you want (outside of incitement etc) and treating people equally under the law; but i think at the least i want to recognise the difference between radical left and radical right wing politics - to me the radical right seems inherently violent (i'm thinking more golden dawn/svoboda/NF than edl), while the radical left sometimes uses violence, not from principle but as a means to an equitable end, however misguided in practice. The right's equitable end, usually only happens when some outgroup has been got rid of.

Do you not think that maybe the two groups propensity to violence can be attributed (at least in part) to the fact that most of it, left or right, is perpetrated by angry young males who are full of piss and vinegar, as most militant 'politicised' types of any persuasion tend to be?

I don't know if you've been involved with, or on the fringes of, hard left or right politics, but if you have then you'll know that it's an extremely macho domain; almost exclusively the preserve of males, most of them young. They may even believe strongly in their respective ideologies, and as you point out, it's easier to sympathise with the leftists in that respect. But very often their idealism stems from, or is fuelled by, anger and frustration which makes violence inevitable, even desirable.

As for the 'provocative' locations chosen for demonstrations, these locations are the ones with the most racial tension, so of course far right groups will target them. It's exploitative and disruptive, for sure, but it's no different to how the three major political parties approach campaigns. It's how politics works. In any case, if the presence of one group is considered inflammatory, does it not follow that a counter-demonstration ups the ante somewhat?

I had friends who attended the Oldham riots in 'protest' at the presence of far-right elements, and they'd be the first to admit that their presence did more to aggravate tensions than it did to ease them. The left-wing groups were there with their own agenda, not to 'protect' the local Asian population, who (from what I've gathered from talking to some of those affected) didn't want them there anyway because they rightly saw them as adding to the problem. The same has happened with some EDL demonstrations which started out as pathetic damp squibs until UAF and friends lit the blue torch paper.

There's a lot of dangerous idiocy on both sides, and while I'm not ashamed to admit that I'd rather have a pint with the guys from UAF than I would their counterparts in the EDL, I wouldn't rush to be an apologist for one bunch of thugs over the other.

 

[Vurtual]

Do you not think that maybe the two groups propensity to violence can be attributed (at least in part) to the fact that most of it, left or right, is perpetrated by angry young males who are full of piss and vinegar, as most militant 'politicised' types of any persuasion tend to be? ...

Yeah i'm sure that being 'up for it' in that way self selects for the more macho (physically or otherwise) among us; and there are similar/the same psychological factors at work in humans whatever your politics. So i wouldn't tribally call left violence in itself as 'better' than right violence (i like non violent politics). Nonetheless i can still percieve an actual difference in the two politics themselves as i described above, even in their respective most extreme versions; though i feel uncomfortable in going as far as classifying in law particularly, i would still want to remain aware of that difference.

I have known some of these lefty types (and maybe been one ), and some of them (us) might have got a bit rioty here and there, but i never personally saw violence of the hateful variety that i would expect from a golden dawn svoboda or nf member (or a goodly percentage of edl who probably overlap with nf types); or any violence particularly, except throwing stuff at policemen who just ran at you with horses or something (and often the violence that was there turned out to be pigs in dreads anyway) - maybe i just went to the wrong demos, but to me there is a difference in what i experienced with what i know (second hand admittedly) about right wing radicals.

Now my view is going to be biased obviously, but i think the professed messages and actual resulting violence (and the nature of that violence) of both groups indicate you can't compare the two extremes easily. I'm not (i don't think) apologising for the left's violence, because i don't agree with violent politics on either side (obviously i don't count property damage as violence like the media)

((there you go, it's my usual 'have my cake and eat it' answer (that phrase should be the other way round anyway, as it makes me think i can actually get away with it)

 

[Shambles]

It's difficult, because I agree in freedom to hold whatever ideas you want (outside of incitement etc) and treating people equally under the law; but i think at the least i want to recognise the difference between radical left and radical right wing politics - to me the radical right seems inherently violent (i'm thinking more golden dawn/svoboda/NF than edl), while the radical left sometimes uses violence, not from principle but as a means to an equitable end, however misguided in practice. The right's equitable end, usually only happens when some outgroup has been got rid of.

I have to see that as a double standard no matter how much I may agree with aspects of it. I have a major problem with even moderate right-wing politics let alone far right but that doesn't make it acceptable to use violent tactics just because most would probably (rightly) perceive the far-right as being prone to acts of extreme violence as a result of their socio-political hatreds. But how is that different from hating the far-right because they are hateful? That's exactly what "they" use to justify paki-bashing or whatever. They see it as a justifiable means to an end - or at least that's the excuse given for thuggery much of the time.

I do know what you are saying and I do (sort of) agree with much of it but I think Sammy makes an excellent point - for a lot of people drawn into more extremist ends of the political spectrum they are just angry young men and if they hadn't channelled it into politics it would be something else. They'd be organising fights on estates around footy matches or whatever happened to interest them which had a handy wing that is always up for a fight.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

In short Shammy I agree "do it with some sense" and, believe me, have been highly embarrassed to see good friends act as idiots and actually hit people (by mistake), the wrong people, with missiles.

I've always been a bit more targeted.

But I stand by my initial post. This thread, starting with Sammy's representation of the Left as 'goons', was descending into something a fascist would have been gleeful to see. I'm glad to have started a debate that at least has clarified a few things and moved the argument in a slightly different direction.

And I'm not even dismissing out of hand everything Sammy says regarding his so nicely put piss and vinegar post. Yes, that's part of it. I even saw a boy move over directly from the NF to RA, which kinda reinforces his point. But to move from that to an apparently dismissive wave of the hand 'goons' characterization of the whole Left is, for me, too much to swallow without lobbing the odd brickbat back.

As it were.

 

[Shambles]

I don't think it was ever in any real doubt that those of us who tend to dress to the left (as it were) were probably more or less in agreement. Absolutism irks me and I find it especially irksome when it's "my side" glossing over the fact that we have arseholes just as arseholey (in some ways - perhaps different ways sometimes but when it comes to being overly aggressive very much of a muchness I'd say). It bothers me because it gives excuses and "justification" for all that right wing rhetoric about being oppressed by Leftist establishment (y'know that one we are all so familiar with 8)). We know it's bullshit but every time a group goes that bit too far and isn't targeting things as they should do and letting emotion - anger specifically - cloud judgement it sets the whole thing back.

I am very much in agreement with yourself and Vurtual that the far-right are vile people... certainly misguided people and they often happen to be vile with it. There does seem to be more of a pull to the extreme right than the extreme left for out and out thugs. There are thugs on "our" side too though and I don't think it does us any favours to pretend they don't exist. When we're talking about standards of behaviour, mindless hate and brutality it's really not helpful when "they" can reel off examples of having it inflicted on them. I don't doubt there's usually more to the story but the perceptions of the wider public do matter and thuggery does not go down well with any right-thinking person (right as in correct that is - the other right are indeed rather fond of it and was never suggesting otherwise).

Basically, don't drop to "their" level is all I was saying. Does "us" no favours but "them" plenty. Counter-productive even if it is briefly satisfying (as I'm sure it is - but then so is stamping on a black kid's head if you're in the NF).

 

[Vurtual]

We're all on the same side, and angels on a pinhead and all that . But i'll still wriggle a bit more I thought i was careful not to justify any of the violence (i've lost count), just to argue that there is a difference in the politics behind it on the two sides. And i don't really think it's about vile people really - both sides probably have similar mixes of personality; i'm suggesting that extreme right ideas are inherently more violent and dangerous than extreme left ones (eg racism) - you can't illegalise ideas of course (thank god), only actions, but you can be aware of their characteristics.

I was giving a double standard in how i view these groups, but as i said i already have a double standard in how i judge nazi politics from my upbringing, and i don't want to remove it (as i think it's based on evidence). Not all social groupings are treated equally - if a collection of serial killers or paedophiles set up a group promoting their trade, even if intellectually, society wouldn't like it; i don't think groups who even semi-overtly promote ideas that would end up in nazi-style detention camps is much different (even if it's muslims and dole scroungers in the camps instead of jews)) - so i'll at least give them equal opprobrium as those other hypothetical examples. Thankfully, society largely still doesn't like overt nazi groups, even if they're technically legal (hence why bnp/edl/ukip have to say they're expelling nf members to get more votes).

Anyway, There's so much more that unites us than divides us - same as the rest of humanity (facsists included)

 

[Shambles]

We're all on the same side, and angels on a pinhead and all that . But i'll still wriggle a bit more I thought i was careful not to justify any of the violence (i've lost count), just to argue that there is a difference in the politics behind it on the two sides. And i don't really think it's about vile people really - both sides probably have similar mixes of personality; i'm suggesting that extreme right ideas are inherently more violent and dangerous than extreme left ones (eg racism) - you can't illegalise ideas of course (thank god), only actions, but you can be aware of their characteristics.

I take your Facism and raise you Stalinism. Any political views taken to ridiculous extremes tend to be taken over by psychopaths. I see precious little difference between extreme far right and extreme far left to be honest.

I do take the point that Facism is by nature oppressive but Communism is too unless literally everybody agrees with it. You can't force people to commune... outside of certain Communist countries. Much like you can't force people to "purify" their nations and link capitalism intrinsically to the state. We may be halfway there already but I don't really see that the extreme other end of the spectrum is any better.

I am left-leaning - heaviily so - but would say I was of the liberal left rather than the socialist left. I'm not exactly right on matters that socialism covers either but just don't go in for Marxism or any of the other isms. Left wing libertarian is the vague term I suppose but unsatisfactory due to sounding connected to Libertarianism in the American sense which I have some minor agreement with but mostly couldn't get along with cos far too cutthroat. Liberal in the true sense of the word - freedom loving and approving of - but with social conscience rather than 'Fuck you I'm rich" social beliefs. Not just cos I ain't rich either. I'm fairly sure I would practice what I preach if I were.

 

[Vurtual]

Well it's true that stalin's as bad as hitler in many ways, and i won't defend him, but i still think it came from something very different - the socialist idea had to be severely twisted before it could accomodate what stalin got up to later on (see animal farm) - it wasn't there from the start in a manual like mein kampf (apologists would say the invasion by the capitalists and white russians made lenin become authoritarian to 'safeguard the revolution') . There was hardly any tweaking needed for hitler - in fact they'd been doing the mob violence bit for ages (against lefties as well as jews) before he started using the state for it - by its own account, nazism/facsism is about 'might is right' and xenophobia. Communism is about equality and internationalism, even if it sometimes/often turn into 'might is right' when it gets hold of a state (that's why i'm anarchist)

And i'd move the goalposts anyway and call stalinism facsist, not communist - a good rule of thumb for me is if it's got democracy it could be socialist/communist - if it hasn't got it how could it be? (to me socialism is democracy without the power/influence of the owners effectively neutralising everyone elses votes (which would naturally become communism)). The ussr was supposed to be a democracy - each workers' soviet (workplace/factory) would vote democratically, a representative from each getting together and voting on central issues; but this was soon abandoned by lenin when he centralised after being invaded by us.

Soviet russia as it was isn't much of an example of communism anyway (more goalpost moving) - lenin belived strongly in marxist theory, so he was convinced that russia wasn't ready for socialism cos it hadn't industrialised - he thought he needed to create state-coontrolled bourgeois capitalism in russia first, so that communism would emerge later following the theories of marx (even though ironically marx never wrote those ideas as political programs, but as economics/philosophy). Stalin and later breshnev's model for their industrial economy was usa.

I don't see the idea of everyone in principle owning everything oppressive personally - most people in the world would gain in their share (only the top 10% or so would actually lose out, and only the 1% really lose) - how you do that is another matter - i certainly don't want some central state putting people in gulags and deciding everything for our own good cos that's not communism (cos those deciders have got the power). i prefer some bottom up self organised anarchist organisation myself (practical utopian that i am ). If i have to name drop, anarcho-syndicalism is quite a good one i think (and i like the wobblies (IWW) (not just cos the name)); also the IOPS and Parecon (participatory economics) have some interesting ideas about organising society.

 

[Shambles]

And i'd move the goalposts anyway and call stalinism facsist, not communist

So would I. Fascism is when corporation become state controlled. Ring any bells? Hitlerism was not Fascism it was racism meets Fascism in Communist Hell. Fascism need not be racist. America and Britain (and most "Western/Northern" nations) do a fine job of that as it is. We live in a semi-fascist state no matter how socially liberal it may be. All extremes end up in the same place: totalitarianism. That is a Bad Thing.

Socialism and Communism are frankly things I don't know enough about the technical differences to argue the toss. I do know that far leftist stuff tends towards communism in the true sense of the word and I like the notion but not the reality. There has never existed an actual Communist reality cos it always gets overtaken by dictators but if there ever was it would be basically heavily organised anarchism... which is a contradiction in terms. Much as I the idea it could never work. Could never work without extreme oppression to force it to work and that never works either. This is why I am socially left in terms of fair goes to all but don't subscribe to actual socialism/communism. I am not a socialist nor a communist. That is fantasy politics which will only lead to pogroms and gas chambers ultimately cos those things are for ideologues with no sense of the real world.

Is common decency so very hard to wrap one's head around? Don't shit on your brothers and sisters for they are you born different. Don't tryanise because you happen to have momentary power for it is fleeting and you will be fukked anally with red hot pokers when the counter revolution comes - that applies to both sides of the political spectrum. Be nice. Be decent. Your brothers and sisters are you in different bodies and circumstances. Do as you would be done by. Is that so very hard for people to understand?

 

[Vurtual]

Is common decency so very hard to wrap one's head around? Don't shit on your brothers and sisters for they are you born different. Don't tryanise because you happen to have momentary power for it is fleeting and you will be fukked anally with red hot pokers when the counter revolution comes - that applies to both sides of the political spectrum. Be nice. Be decent. Your brothers and sisters are you in different bodies and circumstances. Do as you would be done by. Is that so very hard for people to understand?

Don't get me wrong - i absolutely agree with this paragraph (i was just saying there is objective differences to the politics (or sophistry if you like )

And i think communism can be a principle, not necessarily a total political system; eg we're all used to the mundane communism of the NHS or the fire service.

 

[BecomingJulie]

What you have to remember is, we still retain all the instincts that helped our prehistoric ancestors to survive long enough for us to exist -- although they necessarily manifest in perhaps surprising ways. What helped cave-dwellers avoid large animals, helps us avoid vehicles. The joy of getting a bargain is basically the kill updated.

And one of the capabilities we retained is the capability for behaviour civilised society regards as obnoxious. Because while co-operation is the most successful survival strategy in times of abundance, obnoxiety can be a good survival strategy in time of scarcity. One well-fed caveman has a better chance of passing on his genes than two half-starved cavemen.

We should not be surprised that people can turn nasty if they feel threatened. It doesn't excuse it -- anybody who can wait until they get to a toilet before taking a shit, can suppress any of their other primitive instincts -- but it should be borne in mind by those in positions of power that you must treat people like human beings, if you wish for them to act like human beings. And it is utterly irresponsible to stir up ill feeling, knowing or suspecting what effect it will have on people.

 

[Vurtual]

I won't deny our 'animal' heritage, but i'd contest that the aggressive nasty components are often overstated at the expense of the cooperative ones. Both are undoubtedly there and have influence on what we do, but our success (like other apes) is as much if not more due to our social abilities altruism and intellect as our strength/aggression.

Seems to me in history though there are horrible events that stick out and fill the history books, that most of the time we rub along alright actually (in my life, most people i've ever met are actually nice, and the rest can usually be understood at least with a bit of imagination) (i choose to be a social optimist which skews my judgement).

 

[Shambles]

And i think communism can be a principle, not necessarily a total political system; eg we're all used to the mundane communism of the NHS or the fire service.

I totally agree. That is social liberalism and common decency. Also enlightened self-interest. Who can afford the true cost of medicine? None but the most uber-rich. The self-interest thing is the Left's biggest selling point. Look after your brothers and sisters for they are you. We all know that deep down. Hatred of "The Other" is whipped up by scum fearful of their own shadows. Pity them for they are weak. They are inadequate. And they know it which is why they are so very scared. Don't hit them. Hug them. Over and over until they know you mean it cos you believe it. Maybe they will believe it and know it too by then. Love your brothers and sisters - doubly so if they are morons - the rest of us are sane and know these things. Pity the weak and indulge them. Not too much cos they will fling their shit around the place. But five them a chance cos they are but morons and can be taught cos Truth is simple and all will understand when presented to them in appropriate ways.

 

[BecomingJulie]

I won't deny our 'animal' heritage, but i'd contest that the aggressive nasty components are often overstated at the expense of the cooperative ones. Both are undoubtedly there and have influence on what we do, but our success (like other apes) is as much if not more due to our social abilities altruism and intellect as our strength/aggression.

I agree. Game theory -- a branch of mathematics -- actually demonstrates that co-operative strategies, where retribution for transgression is swift and forgiven is forgotten, are the most successful. It's not surprising that that is what we like, because we inherited it from people who survived because it worked so well. (And here's the drugs connection: Evolutionarily-desirable behaviour leads to a release of the body's natural pain-killing hormones, to whose receptor opiates also bind. That warm fuzzy feeling you get from helping an old lady across the road, is basically a tiny toot of heroin.)

What I will say is that certain elements within the media seem to be sowing seeds of discontent, in full awareness that this will lead to bad feelings and consequent social unrest.

 

[Shambles]

Game Theory isn't even required. Darwinian Evolution wraps that stuff up neatly. We need each other and we found ways to work together (or against) "nature". That is the difference between man and manimal. The rest is furry costume. And bellends.

 

[BecomingJulie]

Game Theory isn't even required.

No, but it's nice when the maths adds up.

Darwinian Evolution wraps that stuff up neatly.

That is because it depends on the underlying mathematics. If the laws of mathematics say that co-operative strategies are successful, then that can no more be untrue than can the angles of a triangle ever add up to anything but 180 degrees.