Current Affairs The Landmarks of Slavery;

[Tubey]

Sorry Tubey, but I have already seen your post #1136 so this later claim to "don't in theory disagree with what you say" and that you loathe modern day politicians just comes across as being heroically dishonest.

I do think you are blind to the problems the system has, thats why you say someone else should convince you of viable alternatives to it.

There's around 50+ posts at least of me on here being scathing of modern politicians and modern politics in general. I've just quoted one.

And no mate, I say the onus is on you to provide the viable alternative because very little other than liberal democracy has prevailed for centuries. Fukuyama's end of history is flawed, especially as it didn't anticipate the Chinese brand of pseudo-capitalist communism, but in essence in remains probably true - if an alternative to liberal democracy exists, you have to prove its viability in practice. You simply can't do that, hence your glib reply.

 

[tsubaki]

There's around 50+ posts at least of me on here being scathing of modern politicians and modern politics in general. I've just quoted one.

And no mate, I say the onus is on you to provide the viable alternative because very little other than liberal democracy has prevailed for centuries. Fukuyama's end of history is flawed, especially as it didn't anticipate the Chinese brand of pseudo-capitalist communism, but in essence in remains probably true - if an alternative to liberal democracy exists, you have to prove its viability in practice. You simply can't do that, hence your glib reply.

Sorry, but where have I ever said I want to get rid of liberal democracy?

 

[Tubey]

Sorry, but where have I ever said I want to get rid of liberal democracy?

You were essentially making the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie argument. How the elite create an illusion of democracy to protect their own power.

So unless I'm mistaken your whole argument against the political class is that the current system of liberal democracy has enabled their success and needs to be overthrown.

 

[tsubaki]

You were essentially making the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie argument. How the elite create an illusion of democracy to protect their own power.

So unless I'm mistaken your whole argument against the political class is that the current system of liberal democracy has enabled their success and needs to be overthrown.

Yes, you are mistaken - quite spectacularly so, in fact. Perhaps you should read Oborne's book.

 

[Tubey]

Yes, you are mistaken - quite spectacularly so, in fact. Perhaps you should read Oborne's book.

Sound, if that's not what you meant then feel free to correct me. As I said, I was going off your words alone. That book is now on my to do list.

 

[dead_soft]

You were essentially making the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie argument. How the elite create an illusion of democracy to protect their own power.

So unless I'm mistaken your whole argument against the political class is that the current system of liberal democracy has enabled their success and needs to be overthrown.

That's a really quite mad reading of what he said. It's really hard not to start thinking you entered in to this discussion with very rigid opinions and views on people who disagree with you. As I think I, and a few other posters, have said, it's not something that should become personal but you keep moving it to opinions on people who disagree with you so it becomes hard to not respond with the same.

I'll say again but most people here seem to be able to change their opinion but, ironically, the only opinion that can't be changed is yours that no one is capable of changing their opinion.

 

[Tubey]

That's a really quite mad reading of what he said. It's really hard not to start thinking you entered in to this discussion with very rigid opinions and views on people who disagree with you. As I think I, and a few other posters, have said, it's not something that should become personal but you keep moving it to opinions on people who disagree with you so it becomes hard to not respond with the same.

I'll say again but most people here seem to be able to change their opinion but, ironically, the only opinion that can't be changed is yours that no one is capable of changing their opinion.

Or - and hear me out here - my interpretation of what he said just happens to be so out of tune with yours that you can't believe it, because you can't fathom any interpretation outside your own bubble.

Because he described the Westminster "gravy train" basically and all I did was make the logical jump to how you go about fixing that, given liberal democracy is generally the facilitator of such abuses. Which it actually is.

So if its not overthrow, it's reform. Somehow. Which would actually be something I wholeheartedly agreed with but can't see how it's viable. If you search my name and the word politicians on this forum, you'll see a long trail showing the loathing I have for them.

But I don't know that as I have his words alone and the accusation that I have "supported the orthodoxy". Now, given he therefore clearly doesn't support the orthodoxy, the insinuation is he wants rid of it. That is not a "mad" logical leap.

 

[dead_soft]

Or - and hear me out here - my interpretation of what he said just happens to be so out of tune with yours that you can't believe it, because you can't fathom any interpretation outside your own bubble.

Because he described the Westminster "gravy train" basically and all I did was make the logical jump to how you go about fixing that, given liberal democracy is generally the facilitator of such abuses. Which it actually is.

So if its not overthrow, it's reform. Somehow. Which would actually be something I wholeheartedly agreed with but can't see how it's viable. If you search my name and the word politicians on this forum, you'll see a long trail showing the loathing I have for them.

But I don't know that as I have his words alone and the accusation that I have "supported the orthodoxy". Now, given he therefore clearly doesn't support the orthodoxy, the insinuation is he wants rid of it. That is not a "mad" logical leap.

It's really quite hard to have any form of discussion with someone who refuses to shift from their viewpoint at all and just keeps suggesting other people refuse to. You just keep throwing at others that they can't fathom any other explanation other than their own despite quite explicitly discussing it. The only person who is turning every point of debate into an ad hominem attack is you. I don't know think it's purposeful but you've derailed this thread quite a lot.

I can't put words into @tsubaki 's mouth, but I really don't think they've come particularly close to what you are suggesting of them.

 

[Tubey]

It's really quite hard to have any form of discussion with someone who refuses to shift from their viewpoint at all and just keeps suggesting other people refuse to. You just keep throwing at others that they can't fathom any other explanation other than their own despite quite explicitly discussing it. The only person who is turning every point of debate into an ad hominem attack is you. I don't know think it's purposeful but you've derailed this thread quite a lot.

I can't put words into @tsubaki 's mouth, but I really don't think they've come particularly close to what you are suggesting of them.

Irony.

Look, read this and tell me if you see any parallels at all: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1/pd-v-bd.htm

It may very well not be that, I've accepted that, he can correct me, but honestly it really wasn't outlandish to come to that conclusion. He basically defined bourgeois dictatorship, whether intentionally or not - at the very least there's parallels in approach if not the net result.

Tellingly, you've provided no interpretation of your own.

 

[tsubaki]

Irony.

Look, read this and tell me if you see any parallels at all: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1/pd-v-bd.htm

It may very well not be that, I've accepted that, he can correct me, but honestly it really wasn't outlandish to come to that conclusion. He basically defined bourgeois dictatorship, whether intentionally or not - at the very least there's parallels in approach if not the net result.

Tellingly, you've provided no interpretation of your own.

Tubey - Peter Oborne is the ex chief political editor of the Telegraph, still writes for the Mail and is basically what used to be called High Tory in outlook.

That you think I (or he) was critiquing bourgeois dictatorship based on what was posted strongly suggests you don’t know what bourgeois dictatorship is, or actually read what was posted, or even understood what happened in British politics during that time.

 

[Tubey]

Tubey - Peter Oborne is the ex chief political editor of the Telegraph, still writes for the Mail and is basically what used to be called High Tory in outlook.

That you think I (or he) was critiquing bourgeois dictatorship based on what was posted strongly suggests you don’t know what bourgeois dictatorship is, or actually read what was posted, or even understood what happened in British politics during that time.

I know who he is. He was a Marxist as a kid did you know? Totally grew out of it, turned arch Tory, then had mellowed out slightly, still very Tory.

As said, I took your words. I knew nothing of the book. Your interpretation could have been from one paragraph, or different to his, or any number of things. No, I used your words alone.

So I ask you politely once more - if I reached the wrong conclusion, feel free to correct me. Or don't. Whatever.

 

[tsubaki]

I know who he is. He was a Marxist as a kid did you know? Totally grew out of it, turned arch Tory, then had mellowed out slightly, still very Tory.

As said, I took your words. I knew nothing of the book. Your interpretation could have been from one paragraph, or different to his, or any number of things. No, I used your words alone.

So I ask you politely once more - if I reached the wrong conclusion, feel free to correct me. Or don't. Whatever.

You haven’t read the book, Tubey. Perhaps you should read it before coming out with criticisms of my interpretation of it.

 

[Tubey]

You haven’t read the book, Tubey. Perhaps you should read it before coming out with criticisms of my interpretation of it.

I'm not criticising your interpretation of it. I'm interpreting your interpretation of it! If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I've asked for clarity. That's it.

Hell, the criticism of liberal democracy as a borgeois dictatorship is actually in many ways a valid one!

EDIT:

Obviously, to the rest of us there is presented a fiction that the normal Lib - Lab - Tory rows are still going on, a fiction that is supported by a media that is increasingly part of the political class.

For the capitalists, freedom of the press and free speech, as examples, mean the right to fill the air-waves and daily newspapers with their propaganda and lies and to use them freely to debate with each other. In the final analysis all their talk about democracy boils down to one thing. The ruling class decides by struggle and compromise within its own ranks, and among its paid politicians, how it will maintain its system of exploitation over the people.

You honestly see no parallels between those two statements? None at all?

 

[degsy]

@DrEFC
The Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron at substantial expense in 1808 after Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807, an Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. The squadron's task was to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa.[1] With a home base at Portsmouth,[2] it began with two small ships, the 32-gun fifth-rate frigate HMS Solebay and the Cruizer-class brig-sloop HMS Derwent. At the height of its operations, the squadron employed a sixth of the Royal Navy fleet and marines. In 1819 the Royal Navy established a West Coast of Africa Station and the West Africa Squadron became known as the Preventative Squadron.[3] It remained an independent command until 1856 and then again 1866 to 1867.

West Africa Squadron
HMS Black Joke and prizes (clockwise from top left) Providentia, Vengador, Presidenta, Marianna,
	Between 1808 and 1860 the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans.[

 

[degsy]

Liberty?
Liberty?
Come out, come out where ever you are.