Durham leaves the NUS

[David Bean]

Missed this one the other day, but just heard about it yesterday from my friend Liz, a former St Andrean who now lectures at Durham: last weekend it as announced that, in a campus-wide referendum, students of Durham University voted narrowly to disaffiliate their students' union from the National Union of Students. The news is reported here:

http://live.cgcu.net/news/2103

The comments make some reference to the events that led up to this disaffiliation effort, in which two NUS officers apparently threatened students of the university with violent protest after its debating union extended an invitation to a debate on multiculturalism to two members of the BNP, including Andrew Brons MEP.

The debate was subsequently cancelled, in an eerie reflection of a similar incident at St Andrews in 2005, when the convenor of our own Union Debating Society invited Nick Griffin to speak in a similar debate. Despite St Andrews not being affiliated to the NUS, they and their hard-left allies - including the self-proclaimed "Unite Against Fascism" - took a similar action in threatening to descend upon our university and cause trouble. This led to the cancellation of that debate, and its replacement with a debate on a motion condemning no-platform policies such as those employed by the NUS. Its then Scottish president, Melanie Ward, appeared and spoke against the motion, but nevertheless it was carried overwhelmingly and the NUS's policy and actions were excoriated by members of the House.

I hope these events will serve as yet another reminder of why St Andrews should have nothing whatsoever to do with the NUS.

[DACrowe]

The NUS threatened 'violent protests'? I'm pretty sure that's ultra vires, isn't it?

[Same Guest]

The NUS threatened 'violent protests'? I'm pretty sure that's ultra vires, isn't it?

It is, yes. However, keep in mind that for socialists like NUS officers, the rule of law and constitutionalism goes out the window when it comes to their own personal agendas and "feelings." (Ayn Rand, op. cit.)

Recall that these are the same people who grow up to steal vast sums of money through taxation.

[Senethro]

Socialists are fascists who would use mob rule and fear to suppress dissent. One need only look at the Communist parties of China and Russia and the National Socialist party of Germany to see this is so.

[RedCelt69]

Still beating the same drum.

In a very big and empty room.

Quite possibly in Belize.

[Duggeh]

Interesting that the NUS hates the BNP so much if they're far-left. So are the BNP.

[RedCelt69]

Interesting that the NUS hates the BNP so much if they're far-left. So are the BNP.

BNP far left? Oh very deary me... Only if you're getting very confused with your left and right wing policies. They have some "left" ideas, purely based on the concept of divorcing the UK from every foreign country in the world... and using cooperative movements to "compensate" for such an insane move. Deciding that they must therefore be a leftist party is one short step away from calling yourself politically moronic.

But hey, if that's your bag.

[Duggeh]

A xenophobic socialist party is still more left than right wing, however they disguise the socialist agenda and however the mass media choses to misrepresent the xenophobia as nazism.

But yeah, I may have been, and may still be, although I admit nothing, drunk as all hell. Besides, isnt feckless pointless stupid shit-pot-stirring what this forum is all for?

[wild_quinine]

Only if you're getting very confused with your left and right wing policies.

I do, frequently. Which one were the Nazi Party?

[Senethro]

Only if you're getting very confused with your left and right wing policies.

I do, frequently. Which one were the Nazi Party?

whichever one the guy who disagrees with you is

[ct3012]

Only if you're getting very confused with your left and right wing policies.

I do, frequently. Which one were the Nazi Party?

At schools, the Nazi party tend to get sold as the opposite to the Communists, so extreme Right wing. Their name suggests that they marketed themselves as being both left and right wing (NSDAP = National Socialist German Workers Party). So take what you will from that. I haven't done any proper theory on the Nazis since Adv Higher History four years ago.

[RedCelt69]

Only if you're getting very confused with your left and right wing policies.

I do, frequently. Which one were the Nazi Party?

Please tell me that you don't buy into the "socialist" part of their name. I once guffawed (and I mean literally, Victorian-style mirth that can only suitably be called a guffaw) whilst reading a Norman Tebbit article in the Daily Mail*. In a long diatribe about how bad socialism is, he pointed out that the Nazis were socialists. Not because they actually practiced socialism... but purely because they had it in their name.

Yeah. I'll call myself a vegetarian, then. I mean, I'll still eat meat - but don't dare tell me I'm not a vegetarian.

A xenophobic socialist party is still more left than right wing, however they disguise the socialist agenda and however the mass media choses to misrepresent the xenophobia as nazism.

The "socialism" in their agenda isn't down to any kind of belief that all people should be regarded with the same level of due respect. The "socialism" is there to prevent a need for black/brown/non-Christians (in the very loosest sense of the word) intervening in an economy divorced from foreigners. A policy designed around the hatred of non-whites (rather than the hatred of economic disparity and the misery it brings) isn't socialism.


* Not purchased by me.

[DACrowe]

Only if you're getting very confused with your left and right wing policies.

I do, frequently. Which one were the Nazi Party?

At schools, the Nazi party tend to get sold as the opposite to the Communists, so extreme Right wing. Their name suggests that they marketed themselves as being both left and right wing (NSDAP = National Socialist German Workers Party). So take what you will from that. I haven't done any proper theory on the Nazis since Adv Higher History four years ago.

Actually the voter base of the Nazi party was fairly similar to the voter base of the BNP; disgruntled (often long term unemployed) working class voters with racist and jingoistic leanings. This is a base which responds to economic policies you might consider to be left wing (obviously: job creation, make the rich pay their fair share, communal ownership of this and that) but also to socio-cultural policies which would be seen as 'right' (a useless term) of conservatism and strongly (why? dunno) favours authoritarianism. If you are interested in learning more about it, The Nazi Voter by Thomas Childers is probably the place to go. I would bet there's some interesting work to be done on just why certain elements of the political psychology of such people come together (why do (for want of a better description) racist unemployed people favour particularly authoritarian government; it is at least not obvious why this should follow). Tends to be heavy on conspiratorial explanations for economic problems (it's the jews/the asylum seekers and the november criminals/the EU stealing all our money which is why I am unemployed, the government is either in hoc with such people or else doesn't care about me).

[RedCelt69]

Actually the voter base of the Nazi party was fairly similar to the voter base of the BNP; disgruntled (often long term unemployed) working class voters with racist and jingoistic leanings. This is a base which responds to economic policies you might consider to be left wing

It is very Darwinian - the hatred/distrust of those not like you.

It is a common theme: love of my family above all others, love of my village above all others, love of my nation above all others, love of my species above all others.

During a philosophical discussion about Utilitarianism, my tutor raised the infinite-series-of-ponds argument as to why a child drowning in the local pond has exactly the same rights and expectations from us as those in another part of the world - and why we must hand out all of our money to help every citizen in every part of the world as if they were our immediate neighbour. Great idea, but hopelessly flawed as it violates the above theme of loving those closest to us above all others. It's an in-built mechanism that allowed us (and every other creature) to evolve.

Whether that mechanism is "right" is another matter entirely, of course - but it is there and it is deep. For some, that depth is too far to go and so they have a knee-jerk reaction of distrust towards anyone who doesn't look and feel like their own family in their own village.

Next time you see a report of a terrible incident somewhere in the world (like a plane-crash or a tsunami) count how long it takes them to tell you how many Brits were injured/killed.

I would bet there's some interesting work to be done on just why certain elements of the political psychology of such people come together (why do (for want of a better description) racist unemployed people favour particularly authoritarian government

A non-authoritarian government would try to help everyone... rather than just everyone who looks like you.

[macgamer]

I heard that this Cahan fellow:
http://yourunion.net/elections/content/ ... ugo_cahan/
has visions of St Andrews SA joining the NUS.

Being a National Executive in the governing party’s 40,000 strong youth wing, I have experience in representing young people on a truly national scale!

Somewhat unsettling.

[Super Jock]

Why do people across the world have such a propensity to box every intention under a limited number of buzz words. "Socialist", "Communist", "Nationalist", Both China and Russia are defined communist but their political philosophies hugely different. (Russia had closed Markets and no private property, though limited, China has both) A fair description of Pure Capitalism would be controlling corruption, by freely letting everyone be corrupt. But that doesn't mean that is the prevailing case in Capitalist economies.

I understand that anyone who uses the word Nationalist without cringing or wishing a little the SNP would change their name, has a rather limited view of other peoples perceptions...

Putting the word violent in front of protest, means a riot... which I strongly doubt. Actually having now read what they said I quote "colossal demonstration." It's ridiculous this thread went to the Nazi's so fast, when it was after all, about two peaceful protests, NUS opposition, and Durham's opposition to NUS. This is good, it's not like someone started bombing anything.

[DACrowe]

During a philosophical discussion about Utilitarianism, my tutor raised the infinite-series-of-ponds argument as to why a child drowning in the local pond has exactly the same rights and expectations from us as those in another part of the world - and why we must hand out all of our money to help every citizen in every part of the world as if they were our immediate neighbour. Great idea, but hopelessly flawed as it violates the above theme of loving those closest to us above all others. It's an in-built mechanism that allowed us (and every other creature) to evolve.

One question to ask might be to what extent an account of our 'moral obligations' should be based on prior reflections about what rules might be rational or justifiable or general utility-promoting to adopt versus what rules we implicitly appear to follow according to how the psychological processes underpinning our morality actually operate (with perhaps moderate tweaking in the direction of general utility). As Flanagan puts it in Varieties of Moral Personality we must "make sure when constructing a moral theory or projecting a moral ideal that the character, decision processing and behaviour described are possible, or are perceived to be possible, for creatures like us".

A non-authoritarian government would try to help everyone... rather than just everyone who looks like you.

I think that might be a bit overly simplistic. I mean, an ultra-libertarian minimal state is non-authoritarian but it certainly doesn't try to help everyone (those it's lack of help tends to be equal). I guess the question is why are none/so few of the 'we whites have to stick together' folks social liberals at the same time. I'm sure there's a reason, but it's not immediately apparent to me.

[DACrowe]

I understand that anyone who uses the word Nationalist without cringing or wishing a little the SNP would change their name, has a rather limited view of other peoples perceptions...

I'm not sure how consistent it is to complain about the misuse of conceptual labels on the one hand and then go and criticise a legitimate example of the employment of one on the other. The SNP believe Scotland is or ought to be a separate nation state and that the interests of the nation of Scotland should be put above those of others by the ruling government; they are for that reason nationalists. At the same time there's a fairly widespread viewpoint in global justice termed 'liberal nationalism' whereby you think for whatever reason that the optimal setup is for the world to be setup in separate liberal nation states as opposed to what seems to be the more common view that we ought to be working towards a unitary cosmopolitan state. So long as the definitions are kept basic and distinct from their emotive connotations then it's possible to have a sensible discourse which contains them in names: 'nationalist' involves some significance being attached to nationhood', 'republican' involves some importance being attached to the community of equal citizens, 'liberal' involves some importance being attached to individual liberty, 'communist' involves some importance being attached to the communal ownership of... stuff. I'm not the biggest fan of the SNP, but it's entirely legitimate for them to call themselves Nationalists.

[RedCelt69]

One question to ask might be to what extent an account of our 'moral obligations' should be based on prior reflections about what rules might be rational or justifiable or general utility-promoting to adopt versus what rules we implicitly appear to follow according to how the psychological processes underpinning our morality actually operate (with perhaps moderate tweaking in the direction of general utility). As Flanagan puts it in Varieties of Moral Personality we must "make sure when constructing a moral theory or projecting a moral ideal that the character, decision processing and behaviour described are possible, or are perceived to be possible, for creatures like us".

Well, quite. Any system of morality that chooses to ignore how humans operate (from our earliest beginnings to the here and now) should be filed away for future consideration - if humanity is ever good enough to adopt such practices. Which is one of the reasons that I'm not a fan of Kant. Nor Utlitarianism - on the grounds of being (in some cases) intractable to humanity, rather than something the ideal human could willingly adopt.

A non-authoritarian government would try to help everyone... rather than just everyone who looks like you.

I think that might be a bit overly simplistic. I mean, an ultra-libertarian minimal state is non-authoritarian but it certainly doesn't try to help everyone (those it's lack of help tends to be equal). I guess the question is why are none/so few of the 'we whites have to stick together' folks social liberals at the same time. I'm sure there's a reason, but it's not immediately apparent to me.

Well, yes. As I wrote that, I was aware that not all non-authoritarian states would be guaranteed to behave like that. Let's say that I was basing the statement on observable, historical models rather than potential models.