David T at Harry’s Place has gone very, very strange today. First of all, he’s linked to and praised the disgraceful fascism-justifying Shalom Lappin article. Not, perhaps, the behaviour of anyone with a shred of decency [*].
More weirdly, in between defending empirically fascist articles, he’s been accusing me of being a "fellow traveller with fascism". While I’d never make such wild, deranged and libellous accusations against Mr T [**], I guess he may be feeling a little defensive on the whole ‘apologist for fascism’ front after constructing that last article…
Seriously, though, nothing I’ve ever published on this site or elsewhere endorses, defends or justifies fascism. Indeed, I’m somewhat opposed to it – as you might be able to guess from my clear and repeated opposition to all authoritarian and state-corporatist policies. I can barely think of a single issue (other than ‘kittens are nice and torturing babies is bad’-level issues) where I’d share any views whatsoever with a fascist, whether of Christian, Islamic or secular flavours. If you claim to believe otherwise, you either can’t read, have serious mental health issues, or are deliberately lying in order to slur me.
[*] Entirely consistent with Decent Left-ness, however.
[**] And I pity the fool who would.
Update: David T admits he was confusing me with another John B, who comments at Harry’s Place and is a bit of an apologist cock. This is a bit lame, in that the latter calls himself ‘JohnB (no2)’ precisely to avoid being confused with me, in that he doesn’t link his comments to SBBS, and in that I’ve been on HP’s blogroll and presumably therefore David T’s radar for over a year. But at least it’s not wild, deranged or libellous. And thanks for your apology, David.
I suspect the Decent Left might be annoyed that Londoners (and Britons in general) haven’t reacted to the bombs by undergoing an LGF-style "WE’RE AT WAR. FIND ME A DESPOT TO BOMB" u-turn. See e.g. Gene at Harry’s Place, who was desperately asking if any of the Bruschetta crowd had ‘got it’ since 7/7 and if so could they beg forgiveness from him please.
Instead people have carried on attending dinner parties, quaffing Shiraz, making sarcastic remarks about George Bush, etc. An Islamist terrorist attack in the UK was supposed to be the epiphany where we all ‘woke up’ and ‘got it’ and realised the Decent Left were right all along. The fact this hasn’t happened might be the reason why they’re all sounding even more barking mad than usual.
I notice that terminally boring village idiot "JohninLondon" now suggests that you might find "fellow traveller with tolitarianism" more appropriate. So I guess either he can’t read, has serious mental health issues, or is deliberately lying in order to slur you. Any bets as to which it is?
Yes, I think you’re right Simon. Did you notice Gene only found one person who had undergone such a conversion, which given they say they have thousands of readers is pretty dismal (less than 0.1%).
I’ve also noted on my own site that the Decent Left, who like to go on about how they have ‘got it’ about the threat faced by Islamic terrorism, seem to have been much more shocked and fazed by the London bombings than us lot on the Bruschetta Left, who were meant to have been (as you say) quaffing Shiraz and generally keeping our heads in the clouds about the threat.
I think it might be because they actually believed their own propaganda about the war on terrorism being won by the resoluteless of Blair and Bush.
I merely asked the question. There seems to be a lot of animosity here against the ELECTED governments of the UK and the US. And am I wrong in detecting a flavouur of support for Marxism here and there ? As Marxism has never yet led to anything but totalitarianism, fellow travelling might appear apposite.
Maybe I am confused by the title of the site.
Go on – tell me you are a Lib Dem.
Maybe I am confused by the title of the site.
Well it appears that he can read, so we’re down to 2 possibilities…
Simon, good insight – that makes a lot of sense.
Yes, I’m deeply pissed off by the elected governments of the UK and the US – but largely by their authoritarian behaviour! Like Churchill, I recognise democracy is the least worst political system; also like Churchill, I frequently get annoyed by the idiocies it throws up.
Marxism has never been implemented by a workers’ revolution in an advanced industrial state. This suggests Marx was wrong about the inevitability of workers’ revolution; it also suggests that there has never been a Marxist government (since only an advanced industrial state could follow the path Marx laid down). In other words, Marx was mistaken, he was an important economic and political theorist who laid a great deal of ground for future theorists who were less mistaken, and he bears no culpability for the evil regimes that adopted his name.
That sounds like a total copout.
I’ve said I support democracy, that I believe Marxism is unworkable, and that I believe that the states that called themselves Marxist have been evil and bad. How’s that a fucking copout?
Well it appears that he can read
I might reconsider that…
All democracy ? Pardon my asking, but do you support the elected government of Iraq ? Or do you allow yourself a touch of flexibility ?
To say you support democracy is not the same as saying you support the policies of any and all democratic governments. I would have thought that you could see this.
Do you support the elected government of Iran? If not, why not? (you may want to think about such things as vetting of candidates by an unelected power; widespread non-participation; an unelected power having the ultimate say in national security decisions, etc).
Despite its limitations, I do broadly support the elected Iraqi government. It’s just a shame that it’s almost certain to collapse into a mess of warlords, theocrats and neo-Ba’athists when we pull out our troops (indeed, Basra already seems to have collapsed into theocracy…).
The elections in Iran were decidedly dodgy. There were lot of reports of malpractice. But all the argument really focusses on Iraq – so –
The elections in Iraq did not have reports of extensive malpractice. Sunnis largely abstained. By their own choice as far as one can see. Sunni leders are now trying to join in.
Yo sy you broadly spport the elected government of Irq. By that do you baccept its legitimacy ? And do you accept that it wants coalition troops to stay in Iraq pro tem ? You don’t think we or the US should withdraw troops unilaterally ? Can we quote you on that ?
As for what happens later — Mort Sahl told us that the future lies ahead. That is not the immediate point. What should happen right now ?
There were no confirmed reports of serious malpractice in Iran. The candidates were handpicked by the religious council, which obviously isn’t a democratic process, but within the rules of the contest the election was just as credible at that in Iraq.
"You don’t think we or the US should withdraw troops unilaterally?"
No. We fucked it up even worse than it was fucked already; if we leave, we’ll fuck it still more. Morally, we should continue to occupy (and by ‘occupy’, I mean ‘ensure that the rule of law as laid down by the elected government is upheld throughout the country’, not ‘let warlords do whatever the hell they like’) until the country is stable. However, we’ve already given up on ‘occupying’ in that sense, so it’s a bit moot.
Good to see you think the troops should stay. You always say that ?
How have we "given up" on your sense of "occupying" ?
The bit in brackets, from what I can tell.
Too opaque and convoluted for my small brain. I worry abot possible wriggle-room.
Anyone else notice how JiL moved from As Marxism has never yet led to anything but totalitarianism, fellow travelling might appear apposite. Maybe I am confused by the title of the site.
to do you support the elected government of Iraq ?
in one move? Stylish.
Marxism may be OK for one aspect of sociological analysis. Just one, not a total blinker system. But Marxism and its variants are crap as philosophy or politics. Poeple who flirt with it/them are crap too IMHO.
I prefer robust and unequivocal support of democracy – wuth no wriggle– Still worried about the scope for wriggle-room.
I prefer robust and unequivocal support of democracy – wuth no wriggle
So should we invade every undemocratic country we can find? Or is there some method for choosing like, for instance, just agreeing with whatever George W Bush decides?
That is another issue. I am probing to check that people unequivocally agree that coalition troops should remain in Iraq pro tem as they are in support of the legitimate civil power.
Just so we’re sure, are you saying if the Iraq parliament voted for the troops to leave you would insist they did?
That is another issue. I am probing to check that people unequivocally agree that coalition troops should remain in Iraq pro tem as they are in support of the legitimate civil power.
That is another issue.
Well you’ll notice that Iraq has bugger all to do with John’s post on which you’re commenting. You brought up Iraq in a desparate second attempt to justify your baseless insinuation that he is a "fellow traveller with tolitarianism", once your first Marxism-based attempt fell flat on its face.
Matthew.
If the elected civil authority did, yes of course. I assume that means the elected government rather than the parliament. But whichever has the constitutional authority, we are beholden to it if they call for withdrawal.
I should have thought that was obvious.
I was simply making enquiries. My long experience is that lefties are slippery bastards, word-chopping is their forte.
I presume, JiL, that, given you regard that "animosity… against the ELECTED governments of the UK and the US" is a signifier of ‘fascism’, you will not display any animosity towards the ELECTED governments of France, Spain, Venezuala, etc.?
Or, as a confessed Thatcherite, is your commitment to democracy skin deep – a commitment to governments that are good places to do business and take possession of public goods?
Who said I am a Thatcherite ? I recall voting for the SDP
against her party.
Who said animosity against Bush and Blair is an indicator of fascism ? You are talking twaddle as usual.
I have worked for governments of both main parties as a civil servant. I support democracy, period. And legitimate and lawful dissent is fine too – it is part of the same package/heritage.
That doesn’t stop one worrying about people who flirt with marxism or its variantsm because those creeds/ideologies are inextricably linked with totalitarianism.
The idea that Marxism is "inextricably linked with totalitarianism", is true, on the level that Christianity is inextricably linked with the Inquisition. But if you mean to say that one cannot be a Marxist and be a democrat then you are plain wrong. Indeed, it is easier to be a democrat while taking a Marxist perspective on society than it is to be a democrat and a free-marketeer. The free-marketeer is committed to an economic system in which all major and important decisions are taken by those with the greatest market power, leaving very little for the government by reasoned debate which is inclusive of all members of society that is the democratic ideal.
Sorry, I took your dogmatic belief in the good of privatisation to be a sign of Thatcherism.
I was simply making enquiries. My long experience is that lefties are slippery bastards
So it’s better to be safe and assume that they’re fellow travellers with tolitarianism until proven otherwise.
Marxism in every known instance is totalitarian. Christianity in virtually all current instances is not.
In the free market decisions are not totally reserved to the fat cats. Think how the mighty fall under a free market. Where is GEC – Weinstock was regarded as the most powerful industrialist Britain had ever seen. Where is British Leyland ? Or lots f big coiirpratoions that have disappeared.
You nderestimate the power of the customer. Where did Vodafone come from – they are just about the biggest UK company yet they did not exist 22 years ago.
Yo will never be persuaded that industry and commerce are best left to market forces, subject to light-touch regulation. You have never seen what a godawful mess public ownership usually makes.
Where did Vodafone come from
Oooh I know this one! They came from Racal, the defence electronics firm which was built on its radio telephony contract with the Royal Navy.
Yes but they were a tiddler years ago – that is the point.
Racal also had battlefield radio.
I happen to think Ernie Harrison of racal pinched the licence, by undue influence of dumb civil servants, He had not put in a proper bid. That is another exmple of keeping government out of thesse things wherever possible. Government is usually secretive, inefficient – and often corrupt or biased. The hidden hand of market capitalism is far more honest and beneficial – it is clean, government is often dirty.
But the point of democracy is to make government open. Secrets are inherently antidemocratic. The ‘hidden hand’ (a mystical belief that owes more to middle-class Christain self-legitimation than to economic thinking) of Adam Smith predates the rise of the twentieth-century corporation – a institution that has managed to effectively decouple the degree of risk taken and the amount of profit, removing the ‘moral’ justification for free market economics. Adam Smith would be calling for greater regulation of these institutions, and the break up of large corporations which effectively hinder the successful (as in, doing the work its defenders claim that it does) market.
But it is not whether customers or corporations have the power, though I feel that your analysis is wrong. It is that, whether customers of corporations exercise power in the market, this system of decision making is not democratic.
"Marxism in every known instance is totalitarian."
Utter bollocks. What about the Marxists in the Labour Party, or in social democrat parties all across Europe? Oh, don’t tell me, as these people are Marxists, they are totalitarians. No argument on the basis of what Marxism is, only assertion in an argument of the viscious circle.
Perhaps he’s talking about Norman Geras?
John – I think I have worked out David T’s funny turn. There is a guy called John B who posts at Harry’s Place which JohninLondon appears to believe is you, and I think perhaps David T too (see their most recent post with comments). The only bit where this theory doesn’t stand up is that the other John B calls himself ‘JohnB no.2’ deliberately to avoid confusion. So perhaps they can’t read?
I should make it clear that I have confused two JohnBs. One calls himself JohnB and the other calls himself JohnB2.
I’d like to make my error clear, and apologise.
I have posted the same comment here:
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/deafening_silen.html#comment-7429055
It has been a hot day.
And there is more than one Larry.
You think you’ve got problems? For a while we had two David Ts at Harry’s Place, one of whom was most certainly not me.
And I should know.
Are there any unknown unknown John B’s ?
FWIW when the faux john b appeared a few days ago I called him out. That is when he changed his name to john b No2. He said he did not want any truck whatsoever with some of the views of john b.
My long experience is that lefties are slippery bastards, word-chopping is their forte.
Translation: I have long experience of losing arguments with people less right-wing than me.
No. I just prefer straight speech. Lefties are often prolix, circumlocutory – slippery. Too many words, too little sense.
I think SBBS is off the HP blogroll now. One critcism too far, methinks. Those jokers the Popinjays make an appearance now though.
SBBS and the Popinjay site are both a laugh. The former is intentionally funny, the latter not.
JohninLondon
(i) David T has admitted that his allegation was erroneous, and has apologised. You also clearly insinuated thet John B was "a fellow traveller with totalitarianism". Are you going to have the decency to apologise and retract it, or are you going to whinge pathetically that you were "only making enquiries"?
(ii) Who is this other "Larry" of whom you speak?
(iii) Why do you post so many comments when you have so little of value to say?
i If anyone advocates Marxism, images of totalitarianism crop up. marxism could be condemned loutright as pernicious claptrap. Anyone who rides along with it is fellow-travelling with a creed that has meant totalitarianis,m in every instance that I can recall.
ii The antipodean Larry c1875. The happy one, not miserable and whiny. Google him, you could learn things.
111 Pearls before swine, dear heart.
(i) Yes but John B does not advocate Marxism: I believe Marxism is unworkable, and… I believe that the states that called themselves Marxist have been evil and bad.
If you’re claiming that he "rides along with Marxism" then you should (a) explain what the hell that’s supposed to mean, and (b) provide some evidence.
Otherwise you should retract your insinuation.
(ii) Well I don’t think I need to worry about running into him in the commenst sections of blogs. I did look him up – he was a boxer. Introducing him into the conversation was one of the very few things of any interest that you’ve said, so thanks for that.
(iii) No: pig-food before gourmets, bell-end.
Re: Simon’s first email, I think it’s boiled over
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/07/19/twisted_logic.php
I dunno, I thought Harry’s "Why do we tolerate the sickening situation where grieving parents of fallen soilders are exploited by those who actually support the very people who killed their sons?" was a remarkably perspicacious criticism of GWB…
"The terrorists surely see an appeasing western population as a major boost to their strategy"
Hang on, I thought the ‘Islamofascists’ didn’t care about our foreign policy but blew us up because they hate our freedom?
(I like the qualifier ‘surely’, in this sentence serving as a useful ‘why the bombings mean we must support our politics even though I’m not really sure what I’m talking about’ indicator)