Leader of the Labour party

[RedCelt69]

You undervalue the average American's intelligence when you say they can't tell the difference between communism and socialism.

Communism and socialism are the same thing in the American political lexicon: have been since the 1920's, at least... All of which goes to the point that the average American has no idea what terms like 'communism', 'socialism', and 'fascism' actually mean.

Just going to pop to William Hill to bet that Hennessy won't apologise for being wrong. Again.

[DACrowe]

What really gets me is how the Right has portrayed Obama as a Socialist/Commie, but they've also made liberal use of his face photo-shopped onto Hitler, complete with moustache. Depending on which commentators you listen to or read, he's either a communist or a fascist, or I've even heard the phrase 'communo-fascist' a few times. Which makes absolutely no sense, but this is America, we do things our own way.

It might surprise you less if you were familiar with the work of Jonah Goldberg, author of 'Liberal Fascism'. The irony of the guy appealing to the idea that many of those who have identified with left wing or liberal causes have had some historical connection or intellectual connection to fascism ('but Keynes himself said his ideas would work best in a fascist dictatorship!1!11!!!')* to justify supporting a right wing political plutocratic establishment which has all but disenfranchised the working class voter in America should not be ignored.

*I can't actually recall the origin of this remark; I think it's the preface to the German edition of the General Theory. But it's a fair example of sorts of moves Goldberg and the like employ; Keynes said fascism would be capable of implementing his ideas more efficiently and Hitler considered himself a Keynesian therefore anyone else who considers themselves Keynesian (and Keynes himself) must be a fascist.

[wild_quinine]

...the idea that many of those who have identified with left wing or liberal causes have had some historical connection or intellectual connection to fascism

That sounds like a bit of a bollocks argument, fair enough. But anecdotally, I see traces of authoritarianism in far left political parties everywhere I look. I'd generally identify myself as a bit left of center, so I'm not shooting from the right here.

I was at a union meeting back during that BNP question-time season, when sometime tried to pass some motion against the BNP. He said, and this is pretty much a direct quote: 'The BNP are standing in the European elections. This cannot be allowed to happen in a democracy!'

I accidentally choked on my juice at that point, and made a bit of a scene.

This is not atypical, in my experience. Actually the politics of the far left are so obnoxious and pervasive in trades unions that I'm seriously considering ditching my union membership - yes, even in this climate.

Nobody has taught me how dangerous shortsighted do-gooders and the overly moralistic can be nearly so much as the SWP, not even the Labour party or the Judean Peoples Front.

to justify supporting a right wing political plutocratic establishment which has all but disenfranchised the working class voter

I blame the American dream and the Meritocracy. Which is not to say that those things are fundamentally bad, but they have side effects which few in the States are willing to acknowledge.

On the back of these two related philosophies, there's a prevailing view that you (everyone!) have a chance to rise above the masses through skill or dedication in the US, and that if end up on top, then you deserved to get there.
(It also translates to an 'if you're poor then you deserved that, too' countermentality, hence the 'get on and die' attitude.)

What that functionally creates is a class system that reinforces the position of the new rich, whilst leaving the masses with a permanent fear of giving up anything that could benefit their chances of making their own fortune.

So when you socialise medicine, you take away a little bit of hope for these people. They vote no on healthcare almost as hard as the people who could afford it anyway.

That, at any rate, is my cultural interpretation.

My own interpretation aside, I've no doubts that McCarthyism is a lingering demon.

[LonelyPilgrim]

So when you socialise medicine, you take away a little bit of hope for these people. They vote no on healthcare almost as hard as the people who could afford it anyway.

I'm currently cooking dinner, so this is a short reply: No, I don't think so, at least not for the majority. Most of the opposition against the Health Care Bill took the form of a tax revolt. The Right convinced a large portion of the country that taxes would have to be raised to pay for the Bill (correctly so, as it's turning out). Most Americans feel over-taxed, and it's that feeling that is, in turn, driving the Tea Party (which is primarily a tax revolt).

Frankly, if the Tea Party movement stuck to protesting taxes and pushing the tax reforms their leaders are advocating, I might consider participating... unfortunately they've expanded their purview into the rest of policy and taken their ideas in those areas from the lunatic fringe (eg. swastikas for freedom and whatnot).

The fundamental rule of taxation is that the amount people are being taxed is irrelevant (heading off the "Americans don't pay as much taxes as us arguments, hopefully...). What matters is the people's perception that their taxes are being used well, and that they are getting a benefit back commensurate with what they pay. Considering our infrastructure is visibly falling apart all around us, it's not hard to understand why so many Americans think we're getting a raw deal. Or why they would vehemently oppose increased taxation - no matter how much it is supposed to benefit them. Looking around today, it's hard to have faith that the government is going to be able to provide healthcare benefits equivalent to the value of the taxes collected, seeing as how they've failed to do so with education or infrastructure.

[David Bean]

For the sake of anyone who missed it, here was the death of Diane Abbot's leadership aspirations live on television, on last night's edition of the "entertainment show" This Week:



Incidentally, to give my own (slightly broader) perspective on Hennessy's question about how the level of debate here has dropped markedly, with the post count tapering to a trickle and the corresponding increase in ad hominem attacks, as one of the once-proud few who've been active on this site for longer than the registration system can calculate, it seems pretty clear to me that yes, The Sinner has essentially gone to the dogs. And the reason for it is the viscous nastiness and high-handed condescension of a small group of domineering yet relatively new posters, most of whom have been active on this thread, who are so certain of their own irrefutable correctness on any issue that they seem to feel no qualms whatsoever in assuming, and acting on the assumption, that anyone who disagrees with them must by virtue of their differing views be a bad person. It's hardly surprising there's such a dearth of truly new users here; were I a new or prospective student visiting this site for the first time, witnessing such behaviour there's no way I'd stick around for more than five minutes. It's as though they're actively trying to drive away all dissenting voices, that they might stand proudly as the intellectual colossi they think they are, the last men on a dead planet.

I've been engaging in robust, knockabout debates with people of all intellectual and political stripes here for almost as long as I've been associated with the university, and still do and will come back occasionally in hopes of a renaissance, but the way things are here at the moment quite frankly makes me sick.

See you all in another month.