The Reform Party and the UK’s lurch towards fascism

The issue I have is that, at a state level, it appears impossible to implement the ideology without committing atrocities. Removing large amounts of personal property without resorting to significant violence seems impossible.

The advantage of prehistory is that we don't really have strong evidence of how things were actually organised, so we can project whatever we want onto that era.

Inter tribal warfare is a thread that runs through human history so the idea that it wasn't a feature in pre-history seems a bit far fetched.

Rich_cb wrote:

The issue I have is that, at a state level, it appears impossible to implement the ideology without committing atrocities. Removing large amounts of personal property without resorting to significant violence seems impossible. The advantage of prehistory is that we don't really have strong evidence of how things were actually organised, so we can project whatever we want onto that era. Inter tribal warfare is a thread that runs through human history so the idea that it wasn't a feature in pre-history seems a bit far fetched.

How convenient - just ignore all the atrocities that are committed by far-right states and only see a problem with communism. Honestly, I'm bored with your whataboutism and continual justification and simping for the evil Tories, who delight in ensuring that only their mates benefit.

You do realise that Capitalism is about to render huge swathes of our planet uninhabitable, right? As long as your Tory mates are making money, then I expect you're okay with that, like you're okay with them exploring for more oil to dig out of the ground.

FFS.

It's not a binary choice between far right and communism is it.

We have to compare communism as a system to liberal democracy as a system.

Communism as a system results in atrocities. Anyone who promotes or defends communism as an alternative to democracy must account for that.

I've yet to see you do that.

Communism has a far worse environmental track record than capitalism does. I dread to think what state the environment would be in had communism won the cold war.

I believe that if we have to use fossil fuels we should choose the least harmful versions.

We are nowhere near ready to run our society without fossil fuels so the least bad option is fossil fuels with the lowest carbon footprint.

You want to continue using fossil fuels with carbon footprints 2-3 times higher than available alternatives and then portray my position as environmentally damaging. It's laughable.

Rich_cb wrote:

That Communism is not a benign ideology.

It is not, or has not been from those who have claimed to practice it at least (we can argue until the cows come home as to whether they were actually communists). However nor is fascism. The trouble is that you appear to believe that the atrocities of the very far left in terms of dictatorial communism invalidate any left wing movement, even moderate socialism, whereas apparently the atrocities of the far right in terms of dictatorial fascism don't invalidate the moderate right at all. More than a whiff of hypocrisy about that.

No. You've just made that up.

Rich_cb wrote:

No. You've just made that up.

What, exactly?

Rendel Harris wrote:

The trouble is that you appear to believe that the atrocities of the very far left in terms of dictatorial communism invalidate any left wing movement, even moderate socialism

I don't think I've ever said that.

I'm sure with your -photographic memory- you can tell me exactly which of my posts you based that erroneous conclusion on?

Rendel Harris wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

All communist states have, AFAIK, engaged in large scale human rights abuses.

So have all far right/fascist states, do you have any point apart from whataboutery?

I think he's trying to link communism and authoritarianism together. There's certainly issues with trying to centralise control of resources and it's a non-trivial problem - money is a very effective way to allocate resources. However, there's major intrinsic problems with Capitalism - without strict governmental controls, you allow unrestricted growth of the robber-barons and their power increases exponentially at the expense of the people that actually do and create things. This is the modern curse of the billionaires that hoard wealth seemingly just to ensure that other people suffer. It's inherent in Capitalism that the divide between the rich and poor will always get wider and unfortunately, wars are inevitable due to the amount of money involved and the profits that a small minority will make from people's suffering.

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm not aware of any 20th century democracies that committed Communist level atrocities against their own citizens?

You're right, of course, that democracies have still engaged in awful behaviour oth at home and abroad but that's not a fundamental feature of a democracy, plenty of democracies don't.

All communist states have, AFAIK, engaged in large scale human rights abuses.

Not wanting whataboutery - and I'm quite happy to remain under the devil I know - but I'm not sure a *lack* of violence is a fundamental feature of democracy either!

I'd certainly agree that there are no shortage of explicit bloodthirsty (or showing indifference of interest in human suffering) quotes available from the likes of Lenin and Mao.

I don't see anything particular to stop any state getting heavy-handed when it feels insecure, or if you're in the way of some powerful functionary. Just stop paying tax, or try to secede!

We may just debate definitions again but to your first point - the Nazis emerged from democracy and democratically won the largest number of seats in the Parliament (before seizing power, not being democrats...). They notably killed a large chunk of their own population. Perhaps it might be fair to say that democracies are maybe not as stable as we might hope? (Rwanda being another notable example here - the killing happened after it had reverted to a dictatorship though)?

South Africa - democracy (but only if you were white).

The UK - orders of magnitude below a Soviet Union but large scale human rights abuses? Absolutely, just less locally or less directly. Hence why we're now compensating eg. people now no longer "ours" in Kenya. (Perhaps we'll be doing similar in Iraq / Afghanistan in the future? )

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-22800194

Democracies are not, by any stretch, perfect but they're better than every alternative.

Genuine liberal democracies with full suffrage are a relatively recent phenomenon but they have a good track record on human rights relative to the alternatives.

The danger of democracy being overthrown is ever present. Trump being the most infamous recent example in, probably, the world's most robust democracy.

The UK with its unwritten constitution and convoluted conventions is, on paper at least, quite vulnerable. The post referendum shenanigans, on both sides, exposed many people to that fragility for the first time.

Trump was a useful reminder not just that any democracy is fragile. That showed there aren't hard and fast lines between "freer, liberal" places and the other types. Just a continuum of better or worse features. Of course once you get far enough it probably looks like a qualitative difference!

Ultimately Trump also showed that the system did work there to maintain itself. Unfortunately illiberal places and regimes can also be stable!

Corbyn was never personally accused of, or found guilty of, antisemitism. If he had been, he would surely have been expelled from the Labour Party a long time ago. He did not break any party rules which is why it was not possible to expel him from the party until v recently (when he declared he would stand against the Labour candidate for Islington). He did say that the EHRC report overstated the problem of antisemitism in the Labour Party. As the EHRC acknowledged, it is not antisemitic to question the extent of antisemitism in the Labour Party.

Get your facts right first. 

Corbyn was not an antisemite of course.

He just happened to do lots of things in exactly the same way an antisemite would have.

He also, coincidentally I'm sure, oversaw a terrifying increase in antisemitism within the Labour party whilst he was leader.

Which is also exactly what we would have expected to happen if he was, himself, an antisemite.

Which he obviously isn't.

Um - isn't it a question of degree and what you do with that?  The degree to which people follow human traits (or encourage them in others) - and what that leads to - is quite important!  (No shortage of historical examples).

You're quite right, it's not specifically party political - and some of these posts are neatly self-contradicting.

However I think it's fair to ask at any given point are there any groups especially indulging in this - or encouraging it in others as a means to an end?

I think all of society is guilty of it to some degree.

In my opinion, those on the left seem to be the most blind to their own hatred but I'm sure I'm biased.

Rich_cb wrote:

I think all of society is guilty of it to some degree. In my opinion, those on the left seem to be the most blind to their own hatred but I'm sure I'm biased.

Nice - but I guess as framed this question is inherently tempting this kind of answer.  Hence my note about degree.  However that is also probably a doomed avenue because "who judges?" and it's relative ("your team do it far more than my team").

So back to "what action this leads to".

They hanged the kulaks* (well - deported and/or shot, it seems).  Other minorities / out-groups also clearly have it worse *in general* (normally with notable exceptions).

At a much more trivial level I have had some abuse and things thrown at me when cycling.  Of course perhaps it wasn't the bike, could have been random agression or maybe my taste in clothing (not normally "cycling" gear) is triggering for some?

* There is something to your note about a "constructed group" - because e.g. changing your race is not normally an option.  However that argument only goes so far; normally the definition is made by the majority / oppressor anyway and is often effectively arbitrary.  And once you've been labelled ("I know you - you're from a purple family") it may be very difficult to remove the label.

Rich_cb wrote:

I think all of society is guilty of it to some degree. In my opinion, those on the left seem to be the most blind to their own hatred but I'm sure I'm biased.

No, you're wrong Rich_cb, those on the left are all loving and hatred is an unknown concept to them. Apparently. 

Are organised crime gangs or people traffickers an outgroup?
So if I hate them, I'm somehow wrong.

Seems you can just say 'oh you are making them an outgroup' no matter what this group do, say or endorse. There's no line to cross.

Hirsute wrote:

Are organised crime gangs or people traffickers an outgroup? So if I hate them, I'm somehow wrong. Seems you can just say 'oh you are making them an outgroup' no matter what this group do, say or endorse. There's no line to cross.

Exactly - Rich_cb is trying to act like Tories are the victims here. It's a common right-wing ploy to go on the defensive and accuse others of doing what they themselves are doing.

It's like in the U.S. where right wing politicians accuse transgendered people of abusing children, though the vast majority of child abuse is carried out by non-transgendered people in positions of power (e.g. police, clergy, coaches etc).

They're criminals.

That's a bit of a difference.

Rich_cb wrote:

They're criminals.

Not all Tories are criminals but the majority of those who make it to the top, are. 

Likewise any political party.

White collar crime isn't crime then. Let's not worry about corruption around PPE during the pandemic or the award of contracts to organisations linked to the PM/PM family.

Hirsute wrote:

White collar crime isn't crime then. Let's not worry about corruption around PPE during the pandemic or the award of contracts to organisations linked to the PM/PM family.

Don't forget the partying whilst not allowing people to visit dying relatives. Or am I just out-grouping those who think the laws that they implemented don't apply to themselves?

Is any political party different?

You can't out group an entire segment of the population because their politicians are doing what all politicians do.

On this ever changing, sliding scale of yours how criminal do your activities have to be before you can legitimately assign someone to an outgroup?

Do you have a line that can't be crossed ?

Rich_cb wrote:

They're criminals. That's a bit of a difference.

Toryspiv effectively write the laws to suit themselves. Those laws that don't suit or are unimportant to them in holding up their corrupt New Aristocracy edifice are ignored. Billions of pounds of taxpayer money is corruptly stolen but nothing happens. A few concerned old folk protest about the billions of taxpayer dosh subsidising the oil industry and new laws are writ to persecute them mercilessly.

Carspivs, meanwhile, maim and murder with gay abandon. Rapists are rife, especially within the police force. Toryspiv cronies steal billions.

In short, Toryspivs are criminals who've decriminalised themselves by employing their vast power to manipulate and corrupt the rule of law. The damage they're doing is immense - so great that it probably going to end up killing us all in the next 20 or 30 years.

We'll die of weather and oligarch.

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm not missing the point. You are. Throughout human history people have wanted an outgroup to hate.

Here's your problem in a nutshell, dear Rich - you assume that people who merely disagree with you or with people promoting damaging policies that you like are "hating". The hating emotion is one generally felt by those totalitarian types I mentioned to you, based on their intolerance for anything not in their dogma. Opponents are all sub-human enemies.

Those of us who find your intolerance (and that of those you defend) intolerable are merely disagreeing with a stance that is damaging because it wants to destroy our fundamental political tradition of democracy. Most people dislike and disagree with (not hate) Toryspiv policies, not the Toryspivs themselves, who they tend to regard as just deranged. 

Toryspiv want to gaol those who protest their damaging policies but not those lawbreakers who support them. They're also happy to make policy that will kill their various scapegoats (immigrants, the poor, et al). One supporter has just called for the killing of the London mayor. (He regrets doing so, because he got told off, not because he's changed his tiny mind)

Yet I and others who find Toryspivery damaging and best stopped hate no one. I don't hate the Toryspivs who are so damaging to us all. Even their policies and various acts don't invoke feelings of hatred in me but rather feelings of fear and loathing, since they seem to be policies that are well on the road to fascism.

You deny the current Tory party is far right, yet they have many of the markers:

Powerful and continuing faux nationalism.

Disdain for the recognition of human rights.

Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

Control and suborning of the mass media.

Obsession with national security and borders.

Corporate power is protected no matter their damages and crimes.

Unions and other power rivals are suppressed.

Disdain for intellectuals and the arts.

Obsession with crime and punishment - but not for "friends".

Rampant cronyism and corruption.

Fraudulent elections (aka first past the post system).

Attempts to subvert and suborn other agencies with power such as the judiciary.

Distain for the rule of law except as a means of suppressing political rivals, scapegoats and pariahs - but not their "friends".

*********

Face it - you approve of proto-fascists and hate their opponents out of a basic stance of intolerance. Your mind is unable to understand any other attitude so you assume opponents are haters just like yourself. Happily, 'tis not so.

I stand by what I said earlier.

If you think the current government is far right then you need to read a history book.

You've created a label for the "Toryspivs" and you hold them responsible for multiple ills.

I did enjoy "fraudulent elections" though, it was the point you went full tinfoil hat, I'm guessing we've never had a legitimate government by your definition?