In reality, the left is the target of political violence

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tical-violence

Tony Benn. I wish Labour had more like him. I'd still be a member.

This one, for example has had f*ck all interest. LOM WUM threads get more. I’m not being precious btw. It’s hilarious tbh.

I don't think anyone believes it tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I don't think anyone believes it tbh

---

As someone old enough to remember the ludicrous private armys set up in the 70s as a reaction to the Wilson Government I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I don't think anyone believes it tbh

---

From someone so interested in politics that's quite a shocking, disparaging, and dismissive comment.

The final paragraph from Andy Beckett reads:

"Yet as the Hester episode shows, violent sentiments can be expressed by people very close to power, seemingly without serious consequences for their political and commercial activities. Meanwhile, peaceful protesters are increasingly sent to prison. Where a country draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable politics is always very telling".

It's hard to disagree with that, isn't it? Considering Frank Hester said that Dianne Abbott "should be shot".

I suspect that hardly anyone has read the piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

As someone old enough to remember the ludicrous private armys set up in the 70s as a reaction to the Wilson Government I do.

---

Me too.

And from more recent examples, including state violence directed at the political left (the police riot at Orgreave for one).

The Economic League

The Silent McCarthyism

Not all violence is physical

JamesWales should read about that

The establishment are against anything they see as a threat to their power, so instead of left v right you should view it as establishment v anti-establishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

The establishment are against anything they see as a threat to their power, so instead of left v right you should view it as establishment v anti-establishment.

---

No thanks.

Left v right works for me.

Apart from a few fringe far right groups in the UK 'the establishment' is the embodiment of the right. Almost by definition!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

No thanks.

Left v right works for me.

Apart from a few fringe far right groups in the UK 'the establishment' is the embodiment of the right. Almost by definition!

---

That's the con, and it works for most people :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

That's the con, and it works for most people :biggrin:

---

Attachment 6120


:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

No thanks.

Left v right works for me.

Apart from a few fringe far right groups in the UK 'the establishment' is the embodiment of the right. Almost by definition!

---

Surely you realise that many establishment institutions, parts of the media, universities etc are pretty consistent in promoting left-wing ideals though?

And equally, on this whole debate, surely you recognise that whatever measure you use of failure; murdering your citizens, economic mismanagement, starvation, denial of democracy or rights etc, that the left is no better than the right, and vice-versa. It really is a totally outdated way of viewing things really. It's become little more than window dressing and a term for a cultural outlook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Surely you realise that many establishment institutions, parts of the media, universities etc are pretty consistent in promoting left-wing ideals though?

And equally, on this whole debate, surely you recognise that whatever measure you use of failure; murdering your citizens, economic mismanagement, starvation, denial of democracy or rights etc, that the left is no better than the right, and vice-versa. It really is a totally outdated way of viewing things really. It's become little more than window dressing and a term for a cultural outlook

---

Ah yeah, Scandinavian countries with all their socialist policies regularly murder their citizens. Aneurin Bevan after the formation of the NHS went out and slit some throats as well. You've truly got us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Surely you realise that many establishment institutions, parts of the media, universities etc are pretty consistent in promoting left-wing ideals though?

And equally, on this whole debate, surely you recognise that whatever measure you use of failure; murdering your citizens, economic mismanagement, starvation, denial of democracy or rights etc, that the left is no better than the right, and vice-versa. It really is a totally outdated way of viewing things really. It's become little more than window dressing and a term for a cultural outlook

---

There are a lot more parts of the media that lean to the right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

Ah yeah, Scandinavian countries with all their socialist policies regularly murder their citizens. Aneurin Bevan after the formation of the NHS went out and slit some throats as well. You've truly got us.

---

I mean you have literally selected two very specific and curious examples from the great history of political nations.

And one of them is wrong too. Scandinavian countries aren't socialist at all.

The issue of right, just, moral, good, honourable or successful governance of countries is nothing to do with the left/right scale at all. They will tend to be liberal democracies but that spans the spectrum in itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo

There are a lot more parts of the media that lean to the right

---

Of course, I doubt anyone disputes that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tical-violence

Tony Benn. I wish Labour had more like him. I'd still be a member.

---

Great man , great quote about him "Tony Benn's politics had depth because he had a sense of history." today's shallow Labour Party could not hold any credit , when matched with his honesty .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Surely you realise that many establishment institutions, parts of the media, universities etc are pretty consistent in promoting left-wing ideals though?

And equally, on this whole debate, surely you recognise that whatever measure you use of failure; murdering your citizens, economic mismanagement, starvation, denial of democracy or rights etc, that the left is no better than the right, and vice-versa. It really is a totally outdated way of viewing things really. It's become little more than window dressing and a term for a cultural outlook

---

‘Surely you realise’…. ‘Surely you recognise’…. Surely I don’t!

There is nothing outdated in realising and recognising that the wealth, power and privilege of the UK establishment has nothing to do with the political left which exists to challenge those things. A few sociology departments does not offset the vast and growing concentration of establishment power that exists to maintain that wealth, power and privilege. In my experience it is only the apologists for that inequality and abuse that argue the analysis is now irrelevant.

If you insist on widening the view to take in the crimes of parasitic bureaucratic castes in states that claim to be inspired by Marx and Lenin then all I can say is those regimes are not of the political left. The ‘left’ were among the first victims of those autocratic regimes. But that is a massive deflection anyway from the Andy Beckett article that started this thread which was clearly directed at the history and current threats of political violence directed at the left in the UK - that you claimed no one believes.

The terms still have meaning and value. You seem to think they are no more than archaic flags in someone’s culture wars. Gluey seems to see the world through a lens of pro-WEF and anti-WEF - who is in the Swiss bunker and who isn’t. I disagree with you both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

‘Surely you realise’…. ‘Surely you recognise’…. Surely I don’t!

There is nothing outdated in realising and recognising that the wealth, power and privilege of the UK establishment has nothing to do with the political left which exists to challenge those things. A few sociology departments does not offset the vast and growing concentration of establishment power that exists to maintain that wealth, power and privilege. In my experience it is only the apologists for that inequality and abuse that argue the analysis is now irrelevant.

If you insist on widening the view to take in the crimes of parasitic bureaucratic castes in states that claim to be inspired by Marx and Lenin then all I can say is those regimes are not of the political left. The ‘left’ were among the first victims of those autocratic regimes. But that is a massive deflection anyway from the Andy Beckett article that started this thread which was clearly directed at the history and current threats of political violence directed at the left in the UK - that you claimed no one believes.

The terms still have meaning and value. You seem to think they are no more than archaic flags in someone’s culture wars. Gluey seems to see the world through a lens of pro-WEF and anti-WEF - who is in the Swiss bunker and who isn’t. I disagree with you both.

---

How is the left challenging the establishment at the moment? Aren't most on the left cheering on the house of lords in the last week or two, praising the top universities decolonising programmes, trying to overturn the referendum to keep us in a huge free market and pretty content with the BBCs editorial stances? I'm not sure I see the challenging? Not in a real sense. Even less so in America, although there are of course other countries!

Ah, of course, when it goes disastrously wrong, then it doesn't count! Come on Jon, a great great many libes in history have been deeply ruined under left wing ideas and if you can't see that then I am very surprised.

I don't think they are entirely meaningless, but I think it's largely cultural flag waving, a borderline religious role more than an attempt at real problem solving.

Just sounds fanatical if only good things can exist under left wing politics, it's like those who say the same about islamic states or those states in history that must be true to the bibles teachings etc.

Shit governance and shit policies has little to do with the left/right scale IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I mean you have literally selected two very specific and curious examples from the great history of political nations.

And one of them is wrong too. Scandinavian countries aren't socialist at all.

The issue of right, just, moral, good, honourable or successful governance of countries is nothing to do with the left/right scale at all. They will tend to be liberal democracies but that spans the spectrum in itself.

---

Pinochet , your maggies mate

The Caravan Of Death

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Pinochet , your maggies mate

The Caravan Of Death

---

Yes, he is a right-wing dictator. Can you think of any left-wing ones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Pinochet , your maggies mate

The Caravan Of Death

---

Yes, he is a right-wing dictator. Can you think of any left-wing ones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Of course, I doubt anyone disputes that

---

They all do the Labour party is a lite Tory one and in tune with them, watch the Sun back Blair Starmer and Rachel Thatcher as it did with Blair ,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

‘Surely you realise’…. ‘Surely you recognise’…. Surely I don’t!

There is nothing outdated in realising and recognising that the wealth, power and privilege of the UK establishment has nothing to do with the political left which exists to challenge those things. A few sociology departments does not offset the vast and growing concentration of establishment power that exists to maintain that wealth, power and privilege. In my experience it is only the apologists for that inequality and abuse that argue the analysis is now irrelevant.

If you insist on widening the view to take in the crimes of parasitic bureaucratic castes in states that claim to be inspired by Marx and Lenin then all I can say is those regimes are not of the political left. The ‘left’ were among the first victims of those autocratic regimes. But that is a massive deflection anyway from the Andy Beckett article that started this thread which was clearly directed at the history and current threats of political violence directed at the left in the UK - that you claimed no one believes.

The terms still have meaning and value. You seem to think they are no more than archaic flags in someone’s culture wars. Gluey seems to see the world through a lens of pro-WEF and anti-WEF - who is in the Swiss bunker and who isn’t. I disagree with you both.

---

Well said, lots of going all around the houses in this thread and none of it makes the original article less true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Well said, lots of going all around the houses in this thread and none of it makes the original article less true.

---

Well yes, the problem with the article is that it is entirely one sided. Absolute classic guardian. Will ignore anything that doesn't fit in with what readers want to read.

The idea that left wing protesters are somehow oppressed or painted as an angry mob, or that the same isn't applied to rare "right wing" protests is bizarre to me.

I'm not sure the article gave much compelling evidence really