The Labour Thread

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Not all the liberal 'progressives' (not sure why scare quotes are needed)[...]

A distinction needs to be made between people who are progressive and people who simply identify as 'progressives', or people who espouse ideas that we call progressive because they're in line with progressivism. "Progressivist" would probably be a fairer term for them in truth.

 

[HertsWolf]

A distinction needs to be made between people who are progressive and people who simply identify as 'progressives', or people who espouse ideas that we call progressive because they're in line with progressivism. "Progressivist" would probably be a fairer term for them in truth.

Umm, no disrespect but that doesn't appear to make sense. You have listed three categories there. Using one type of punctuation cannot uniquely differentiate between three categories.
Furthermore, people who simply identify as 'progressive' should surely be written as "who simply identify as progressive" (no scare quotes) because they are identifying as being progressive not 'progressive'.
In which case, what then of people who are liberal and neither 'progressive' nor progressive? And those who are liberal but not 'progressivist' (People who aren't progressivist but identify as being progressivist?)

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I'm making the distinction between people who either identify with, or espouse progressive (the ideology) ideas on one hand, and people you mean to describe as progressive (the adjective) on the other. One needs a noun and the other an adjective, because without making the distinction you run the risk of offering someone the compliment of calling them progressive, or standing for true progress, when you didn't really mean to.

 

[rudebwoyben]

Progressivism is a word to describe a 19th century philosophy. It means quite a different thing!

 

[HertsWolf]

What do all you Labour people think of Agent Ashcroft?

 

[rudebwoyben]

A spurned Tory! I did notice that he'd been distancing himself from the Tory leadership in recent months..

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Not all the liberal 'progressives' (not sure why scare quotes are needed)

They are there for the standard reason, i.e. to signify a sense of sceptism about the validity or accuracy of the term.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

@ Ian_Wrexham

I suspect this will descend into an elaborate but rather dull exercise in me restating points that clearly didn't convince you last time, but let's see.

First, a clarification: I don't think generalisations about race are necessarily racist, and none of my arguments presented here rest on such an assumption. I agree that generalisations can be harmless or even useful. Those with long memories (and very uneventful lives) may even remember me making a similar point on TFF about prejudice.

But I think we need to return from the general to the particular and remember this began with me having a pop at a specific person (someone who enjoys a relatively privileged position in society) for a making a specific remark. Our Diane did not merely make a generalisation about race. She made an entirely negative generalisation, and one I’m unable to blithely dismiss as harmless or see as being in any way useful.

I consider that kind of generalisation racist. You don't, and the problem here seems to be that we're working with different definitions. I am not sure how best to progress the discussion because, to be frank, I think my definition is right and yours is wrong. I think my previous post covered the main reasons why, but I'll try to explain again, hopefully in greater detail and with greater clarity.

I see racism as being first and foremost an error of thought; or, more precisely, an error of reason or logic. Like most errors of that sort, it's probably best understood with respect to certain weaknesses and tendencies that we're all susceptible to. The tendency to demonise and be suspicious of 'the other'; the tendency toward reductionism; the tendency to negatively generalise on the basis of extremely limited first-hand experience. We are all prone to these. Like so many of our cognitive imperfections, they are probably evolutionary adaptions.

The less aware we are of these tendencies, and the less equipped we are to self-police them, the more likely errors of reason and logic will follow. Hence the importance of education – not preachy PSE of the "racism is bad, m'okay" variety, but a thorough grounding in human psychology, informal logic, critical thinking, etc. But I digress.

To my mind, understanding racism as something felt or thought erroneously, and something rooted in universally suffered imperfection – is to consider the problem in its most elemental form. If people want to move from that to a more structuralist or sociological type of analysis – focusing on how the basic error of racist thought/sentiment is manifested in various aspects of modern human society (legal, political, institutional, socio-economic, etc.) and how it adversely affects different people/groups to varying degrees – that's absolutely fine. I really can't stress this strongly enough: I don't see it as an either/or. I see no contradiction in thinking (a) racism is fundamentally a problem rooted in universal human imperfection, and (b) the extent to which people experience race-based prejudice can vary enormously.

A white factory owner who thinks all blacks are lazy and thick will almost certainly do greater harm than an unemployed black teenager who thinks all whites are dishonest and racist. Structuralism (or something like it) is great for understanding why. The misgiving I have is when that sort of understanding is used as the basis for a profound category distinction. If the resulting argument were something like "they're both being racist, but one is very likely to have significantly worse effects", there would be no quarrel here. Well, maybe there would, but we’d be on the same side. But something has gone badly awry when two people make the same error but one is understood (and unequivocally condemned) as racist while the other is understood (and excused) as some kind of survival mechanism. We've slipped into a form of moral relativism that seems deeply confused, unnecessarily divisive and not at all helpful.

(I’m sure a better-rested version of me could have made the key points more concisely, so apols for the brain dump. If you think I've side-stepped any of your salient points, please say.)

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

If you see it as a clumsy remark made in a medium that is particularly conducive to clumsy remarks, that's your prerogative. But at the risk of sounding petty and tribal (moi?), I think me seeing it that way would require a level of generosity one seldom (read, NEVER) encounters when the shoe is on the other foot, i.e. when the faux pas is by someone on the right.

The next time some no-mark arsehat from UKIP tweets something non-PC about women, muslims or gays, I don't imagine this forum's merry band of liberal 'progressives' will dismiss it as clumsy. I don't imagine they'll offer some kind of exculpatory 'contextualisation' by pointing out the limitations of the medium in which the offending remark was made. My money would be on hair-trigger sensitivity and easy demonisation. But we'll see…

Sorry, you'll have to forgive me, I wasn't aware I was commenting as a representative of a band of nefarious liberal “progressives.” I was under the impression that I was giving you my personal take.

My point was merely that “x says something that can be construed as racist, ergo x is a racist” seems to be a rather simplistic way of looking at things. The reality is that people make thoughtless, careless, inappropriate comments all the bloody time. If (to cite a rather mundane, everyday example) you were to give me a shiny pound for every occasion I've seen or heard someone use the word gay as a pejorative I'd no doubt be able to indulge a wonderfully extravagant, marvellously flamboyant and utterly fabulous homosexual lifestyle. I could probably excoriate these people for being appalling homophobes but the reality is that people often say things unthinkingly, without malicious intent. If you want an example of “where the shoe is on the other foot” I thought dear old Kenneth Clarke was rather unfairly pilloried for his remarks about rape – it was pretty self-evident to me what point he was intending to make even though he was going about it in a particularly clumsy, oafish way. Similarly, with Abbott, I reckon it's quite obvious that she wasn't talking about “white people” in racially essentialist terms, but more as a shorthand for a ruling class which is overwhelmingly white. That doesn't, of course mean she didn't deserve to be called out for making a stupid, crass comment but then I've never sought to argue otherwise.

I'm afraid your point does appear rather petty and tribal. The “no-mark arsehats” that attract the most ire in my experience are those who are guilty of an altogether uglier form of prejudice – one that seeks to degrade and dehumanise people based on an arbitrary characteristic, be it race, gender, sexual orienation etc. And if we have to play that game then I'll happily counter by saying that there are a hell of a lot of people on the right who show absolutely zero interest in racism or prejudice, who'll essentially attempt to deny the existence of structural inequality and will actively oppose any advancement of minority rights, and yet will happily kick up a great big shitstorm when, say, a black woman says something that might be considered offensive...

Bingo. No problem with people telling me to check my privilege if they then proceed to offer a challenging counterargument, preferably one that contains points I couldn't see because my cossetted middle class white male existence blinded me to them.

But that's quite rare. It's usually used to express disapproval at the mere occurrence of me having an opinion about subject X – be it me (as a man) having an opinion on abortion, or me (as a white person) having a view on affirmative action, or me (as someone reasonably well off) having a view about state welfare.

So you're quite right to be sceptical. It could be used (and occasionally is) as a useful concept, one that encourages more thoughtful and open-minded debate. But 9 times out of 10 it's wielded as a weapon, one used to shut people up and shut certain lines of enquiry down. Identity politics at its most reactionary, divisive and thoughtless.

Another good way to stifle debate? Using made up statistics in support of your argument!!!

 

[Captain Scumbag]

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

@ Ian_Wrexham

I suspect this will descend into an elaborate but rather dull exercise in me restating points that clearly didn't convince you last time, but let's see.

First, a clarification: I don't think generalisations about race are necessarily racist, and none of my arguments presented here rest on such an assumption. I agree that generalisations can be harmless or even useful. Those with long memories (and very uneventful lives) may even remember me making a similar point on TFF about prejudice.

But I think we need to return from the general to the particular and remember this began with me having a pop at a specific person (someone who enjoys a relatively privileged position in society) for a making a specific remark. Our Diane did not merely make a generalisation about race. She made an entirely negative generalisation, and one I’m unable to blithely dismiss as harmless or see as being in any way useful.

I consider that kind of generalisation racist. You don't, and the problem here seems to be that we're working with different definitions. I am not sure how best to progress the discussion because, to be frank, I think my definition is right and yours is wrong. I think my previous post covered the main reasons why, but I'll try to explain again, hopefully in greater detail and with greater clarity.

I see racism as being first and foremost an error of thought; or, more precisely, an error of reason or logic. Like most errors of that sort, it's probably best understood with respect to certain weaknesses and tendencies that we're all susceptible to. The tendency to demonise and be suspicious of 'the other'; the tendency toward reductionism; the tendency to negatively generalise on the basis of extremely limited first-hand experience. We are all prone to these. Like so many of our cognitive imperfections, they are probably evolutionary adaptions.

The less aware we are of these tendencies, and the less equipped we are to self-police them, the more likely errors of reason and logic will follow. Hence the importance of education – not preachy PSE of the "racism is bad, m'okay" variety, but a thorough grounding in human psychology, informal logic, critical thinking, etc. But I digress.

To my mind, understanding racism as something felt or thought erroneously, and something rooted in universally suffered imperfection – is to consider the problem in its most elemental form. If people want to move from that to a more structuralist or sociological type of analysis – focusing on how the basic error of racist thought/sentiment is manifested in various aspects of modern human society (legal, political, institutional, socio-economic, etc.) and how it adversely affects different people/groups to varying degrees – that's absolutely fine. I really can't stress this strongly enough: I don't see it as an either/or. I see no contradiction in thinking (a) racism is fundamentally a problem rooted in universal human imperfection, and (b) the extent to which people experience race-based prejudice can vary enormously.

A white factory owner who thinks all blacks are lazy and thick will almost certainly do greater harm than an unemployed black teenager who thinks all whites are dishonest and racist. Structuralism (or something like it) is great for understanding why. The misgiving I have is when that sort of understanding is used as the basis for a profound category distinction. If the resulting argument were something like "they're both being racist, but one is very likely to have significantly worse effects", there would be no quarrel here. Well, maybe there would, but we’d be on the same side. But something has gone badly awry when two people make the same error but one is understood (and unequivocally condemned) as racist while the other is understood (and excused) as some kind of survival mechanism. We've slipped into a form of moral relativism that seems deeply confused, unnecessarily divisive and not at all helpful.

(I’m sure a better-rested version of me could have made the key points more concisely, so apols for the brain dump. If you think I've side-stepped any of your salient points, please say.)

I think the key point of disagreement is, as you say, on definitions. Your definition views (correct me if I'm wrong) negative generalisations about groups of people as errors of logic and thought - but in my previous post I gave examples of generalisations (including generalisations about "white people") that I find useful and helpful (as a white person) in ensuring my interactions with people are better.

I don't think your definition is that useful because it shuts down critiques of whiteness that are essential to identifying and combating racism on a structural level - which is the level on which it is most damaging (even if it stems from "errors of thought").

I did expand on this a bit more but it isn't particularly relevant to the point I'm making above.

Spoiler

For a start, I don't think structural racism is simply a wider manifestion of your "error of thought" - which I agree is a thing. Rather, race is an artificial creation of enlightenment philopsophers and taxonomer in the seventeenth century to justify the genocide and enslavement of indigenous people by European colonists, for the enrichment of Imperial Europe.

(Obviously genocide and enslavement is very much a feature of empire wherever it has existed, but pre-Enlightenment - perhaps pre-Peace of Westphalia - I don't think there was the same attempt to rationalise it away, with science and reason. Not saying there weren't other justifications for it, but mostly I think people thought less about this sort of stuff).

Hence, racism is more than simply a fear of "the other" that comes about by an error of thought. Rather it's an ideology that underpins, to a degree, modern European nations as we know them; deeply bedded into our own conceptions about how the world works and our own place within it, as well as intersecting with capitalism.

As such racism is far more than an error of thought and we can uphold it and be complicit in it simply by failing to acknowledge the benefits/status that being identified with whiteness grants us. That is, racism persists within institutions even when the people who make up that institution do not have the "errors of thought" that you describe as being the root cause of racism.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Great point, well made.

Always a pleasure engaging in discussion with you too.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Sorry, but it was the most constructive response I could manage at 5am.

And, to be honest, sitting here now, I just feel overwhelmed by the tediousness of the whole thing. You made some fair points in your last post (I've edited my previous post in response to one), and you made some rather more contentious ones that I could reply to at length. Ditto for Ian's post.

But I'm in that position, you know? I don't have it in me to engage in these discussions in a half-arsed way. I don't want to take shortcuts. But I don't really have the time or the stamina or the patience to do it properly anymore. Most importantly, I don't enjoy it. I really don't know why I post here (i.e. this particular subforum). It's become a complete chore, and I don't enjoy it in the slightest.

Time for a break. Apologies for leaving it unfinished.

 

[mnb089mnb]

RACISM!
"Spice lover orders mild curry and gets receipt marked 'white ppl'"
http://t.co/dk0Dfzd5hk

 

[Pagnell]

Stuart and partner Paula McCready, a 48-year-old carer, said they were put off their dinner by the receipt.

Oh fuck off.

 

[Pyeman]

I think the key point of disagreement is, as you say, on definitions. Your definition views (correct me if I'm wrong) negative generalisations about groups of people as errors of logic and thought - but in my previous post I gave examples of generalisations (including generalisations about "white people") that I find useful and helpful (as a white person) in ensuring my interactions with people are better.

I've just been reading through your discussion with Scumbag and I found it really interesting.

Scumbag made the point that negative generalisations about groups of people based on race are racist [a rather simplified account of his arguments I realise]. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in response to that claim you highlighted examples of generalisations about different ethnic groups that can be useful and helpful.

My question is, do you not think that both of those points can be correct? Some generalisations about groups can provoke discussion and healthy critique of power relations and structural inequality in society. Equally, some generalisations serve no real purpose and are founded purely on prejudicial beliefs.

I don't think your definition is that useful because it shuts down critiques of whiteness that are essential to identifying and combating racism on a structural level - which is the level on which it is most damaging (even if it stems from "errors of thought").

To flip this point around, do you not think that your definition, i.e. to see generalisations [even negative ones] as potential opportunities to engage in critical discussion, may to an extent encourage negative or even racist views?

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

So, what is everyone's opinion on Corbyn's first few weeks? I'm particularly interested in non-Labour supporters (not his policies/views as I don't expect everyone to agree, more him and how he has gone about things).

I'm spectacularly biased but I'm very impressed. I can't see how anyone can not like the man to be honest. He's allowing his Labour MPs to publicly disagree with him, he's trying to stop the pantomime of PMQs, he's trying to be substance over style etc and he's not reacted to the gutter press from what I've seen.

As I say, I voted for Corbyn so I may be viewing this through rose tinted specs so I'd be interested in hearing other people's views. I still don't think he'll be PM but I do think politics, and the Labour Party, will be in a much stronger position because of him.

 

[St Nick]

Denis Healey has died http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/03/denis-healy-former-labour-chancellor-dies-aged-98

 

[Red]

So, what is everyone's opinion on Corbyn's first few weeks? I'm particularly interested in non-Labour supporters (not his policies/views as I don't expect everyone to agree, more him and how he has gone about things).

I'm spectacularly biased but I'm very impressed. I can't see how anyone can not like the man to be honest. He's allowing his Labour MPs to publicly disagree with him, he's trying to stop the pantomime of PMQs, he's trying to be substance over style etc and he's not reacted to the gutter press from what I've seen.

As I say, I voted for Corbyn so I may be viewing this through rose tinted specs so I'd be interested in hearing other people's views. I still don't think he'll be PM but I do think politics, and the Labour Party, will be in a much stronger position because of him.

He's handled it quite well, especially in terms of his conduct and how he's endeavouring to change how we do politics. I think this will attract people on the doorstep who rightly said they're all the same. His biggest challenge though is to be more of a pragmatist on some issues. Last night's Qt illustrated this when they were discussing Trident. Aside from his other policies which people eschew I don't think the electorate are ready for a PM who will pursue a policy of nuclear disarmament.

If he wants to be PM he will have to compromise and be more pragmatic on certain policies if he's going to win voters in swing seats.

In the main though I'd say he's done really well in difficult circumstances, especially with the right wing media attacks. I'm not a big fan of social media but the capacity it has to mobilise and politicise people is very welcome, especially it can supplant mainstream media.

 

[Hooped Wizard]

The 'right wing' media have focused on Cameron sticking a cock in a pig's mouth tbh, especially the Daily Mail which even Blair loathed.

Corbyn has got off lightly in that sense and at least they're attacking his policies rather than the disgraceful way they attacked Ed and Brown's appearance and how the left-wing media did with Hague and IDS.

 

[Red]

The 'right wing' media have focused on Cameron sticking a cock in a pig's mouth tbh, especially the Daily Mail which even Blair loathed.

Corbyn has got off lightly in that sense and at least they're attacking his policies rather than the disgraceful way they attacked Ed and Brown's appearance and how the left-wing media did with Hague and IDS.

Tell me, what is the left wing media? If you mean the mirror and guardian they're not left wing. If they were they'd be supporting Corbyn. I don't read the mirror but it's not left wing - it supported Bliar.

The coverage of Cameron's sexual peccadillo lasted a couple of days. If it was in the red tops it's because it's levelled at the political awareness and understanding oftheir readership.

There's been ad hominem attacks on Corbyn. Can you imagine the extent to which they'll go to town on him if he is the leader of the Labour party at the next election?

 

[Hooped Wizard]

Tell me, what is the left wing media? If you mean the mirror and guardian they're not left wing. If they were they'd be supporting Corbyn. I don't read the mirror but it's not left wing - it supported Bliar.

The coverage of Cameron's sexual peccadillo lasted a couple of days. If it was in the red tops it's because it's levelled at the political awareness and understanding oftheir readership.

There's been ad hominem attacks on Corbyn. Can you imagine the extent to which they'll go to town on him if he is the leader of the Labour party at the next election?

When I said left wing I meant those supporting Labour. I didn't mean they had left-wing views, should have posted Labour supporters.

The Times, The Sun, Mirror etc treatment of Hague was nothing short of disgraceful but of course because he's a Tory it doesn't matter.

Also with the Cameron story only getting a few days? What on earth do you expect? Even if it is true it shouldn't be front page news. You must know in your heart that what is going on at Labour is much bigger/shocking news...

I hope he isn't leader in 2020 but if he is I do fear for him yes, especially as he's prone to cock ups.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I think it's mostly more of an establishment/PC/populist media than right or left wing.

 

[Hooped Wizard]

I think it's mostly more of an establishment/PC/populist media than right or left wing.

The vast majority are PC.

Only the Mail & Express aren't.

 

[Red]

When I said left wing I meant those supporting Labour. I didn't mean they had left-wing views, should have posted Labour supporters.

The Times, The Sun, Mirror etc treatment of Hague was nothing short of disgraceful but of course because he's a Tory it doesn't matter.

Also with the Cameron story only getting a few days? What on earth do you expect? Even if it is true it shouldn't be front page news. You must know in your heart that what is going on at Labour is much bigger/shocking news...

I hope he isn't leader in 2020 but if he is I do fear for him yes, especially as he's prone to cock ups.

Regarding the Cameron pig story of course it shouldn't be on the front page of any serious newspaper, but the tabloids aren't serious newspapers because their readers prefer tittilation over serious politics.
What happened with Hague? I can't remember.

 

[Red]

I think it's mostly more of an establishment/PC/populist media than right or left wing.

Yeah, The Sun is very PC. Agree they're populist especially the tabloids. I find it a bit hard to believe the sun and mail aren't right wing. The Sun is owned by one of the biggest proponents of neo liberalism and he's not shy about reflecting that in his papers.

 

[merseyboyred]

'Neez is taking the rather inflexible position of right wing referring only to economic policy again I think. By the more popular definition there can be no doubt the more populist media is centre-right to right imo.

 

[SUTSS]

Tell me, what is the left wing media? If you mean the mirror and guardian they're not left wing. If they were they'd be supporting Corbyn. I don't read the mirror but it's not left wing - it supported Bliar.

The coverage of Cameron's sexual peccadillo lasted a couple of days. If it was in the red tops it's because it's levelled at the political awareness and understanding oftheir readership.

There's been ad hominem attacks on Corbyn. Can you imagine the extent to which they'll go to town on him if he is the leader of the Labour party at the next election?

You can be left wing and not support Corbyn.

 

[GodsGift]

So, what is everyone's opinion on Corbyn's first few weeks? I'm particularly interested in non-Labour supporters (not his policies/views as I don't expect everyone to agree, more him and how he has gone about things).

I'm spectacularly biased but I'm very impressed. I can't see how anyone can not like the man to be honest. He's allowing his Labour MPs to publicly disagree with him, he's trying to stop the pantomime of PMQs, he's trying to be substance over style etc and he's not reacted to the gutter press from what I've seen.

As I say, I voted for Corbyn so I may be viewing this through rose tinted specs so I'd be interested in hearing other people's views. I still don't think he'll be PM but I do think politics, and the Labour Party, will be in a much stronger position because of him.

I think there's a bit of a dangerous undercurrent with some of his comments about the press. I know it's easy to criticise the "gutter press", The Mail, The Sun etc, but why bite the hand that feeds you? Papers might not be as significant as they once were, but they certainly still play a very important role in politics. Yes, the public aren't stupid and can make their own minds up, but the political agenda is often shaped by our national papers.

It's also resulted in an army of #JezWeCan followers who cry with derision at anything reported remotely anti-Corbyn. Journalists like Isabella Hardman (of The Spectator), Owen Bennett (of the Huffington Post), Kate McCann (of The Telegraph) and Kevin Maguire (of the Mirror) - hardly the aforementioned "gutter press" - have reported being spat at, abused and being called "Tory scum" as they walk into the Conservative party conference in Manchester this weekend. The BBC's Andrew Neil has also spoken out against trolls who disguise themselves as Corbyn followers on Twitter. I know Corbyn himself isn't responsible for these idiots and their actions, but he needs to be careful in what he says. His anti-press comments, which were so prevalent in his conference speech last week, could only serve to make things worse.

Owen Bennett: "Anger not just at the idiot who spat at me, but the hordes of protestors who surrounded us and said I, as a member of the press, deserved it."

A new, kinder politics indeed.

 

[Hooped Wizard]

The left have always been the most violent group in British politics.

Hope they are dealt with.