September 2021 General UK Politics

:notes:Autumn leaves when the grass is jeweled. And the silk inside a chestnut shell. Jet planes meeting in the air to be refueled. All these things I love so well…

This month’s thread is sponsored by Jaguar.

Accompanying text:

Our cover this week warns that classical liberalism is under threat. One danger comes from the Trumpian right. The attack from the left is more surprising and harder to grasp. On the face of it illiberal progressives and classical liberals like The Economist want many of the same things. Both believe that people should be able to flourish whatever their sexuality or race. They share a suspicion of authority and entrenched interests. They believe in the desirability of change. And yet the two camps could hardly disagree more over how to make progress. Classical liberals believe that the best way to navigate disruptive change in a divided world is through a universal commitment to individual dignity, open markets and limited government. The illiberal left prefers to enforce ideological purity, by no-platforming their enemies and cancelling allies who have transgressed. The stakes could hardly be higher.

So there we have it.

  • The Trumpian right
  • Classical liberalism, classical liberals, classical liberals
  • Illiberal progressives, illiberal left, ideological purity

Feels like there should be a flow chart of questions to follow so you can find out which one YOU are.

this doesn’t exIst

2 Likes

seems a prick move to close a thread when there’s an ongoing conversation there, parse

@Hostile_17

no! mad eh? where has she said that this is how she identified her politics anyway? I can’t see it and she generally just calls herself a socialist.

yeah I agree being anti abortion is really bad, I don’t think it stops you being a socialist. I don’t really know how you would square the circle between having a sincere belief in life at conception and trying to be a socialist. is it impossible?

You can probably do it with just one: what would you do with an alpaca?

The only reason they think it does is because whenever a shithead squirts out a column about the necessity of a permanent military presence in Afghanistan their menchies are filled with randomers calling them a shithead. That’s literally what they’re complaining about. The ‘illiberal left’ has almost zero material power in the West, but centrist melt journos are terminally online so they’re forced to hear from everyone they’ve worked so hard to not listen to.

1 Like

Sorry. I did wait until Hostile responded to you before closing it.

1 Like

oh no!!

3 Likes

Being politically anti-abortion is incompatible with socialist politics. Obviously if someone believes abortion is ethically indefensible and against religious doctrine then they don’t have to have them, and can still be a socialist.

Translating one’s religious views into political practice is a different matter though, and something she explicitly does. She continues to argue in favour of policies that have the aim of discouraging and lowering the number of abortions, because she thinks abortion in itself is bad. Not for the spurious reason of “increasing choices” available for would-be parents who think they dont have the money and so dont have a child. Anyone who genuinely cared about maximising the bodily autonomy of and choices available to workers would be using their platform to condemn and mobilise against gendered state violence against workers (which is what abortion restrictions are).

I think it’s really vital to defend abortion on the basis that it is a good thing for workers to have access to, and the main group of people it benefits is working class women. Anyone undermining that is acting directly against their interests.

3 Likes

thanks

I don’t think I agree with this, I think it’s more worthwhile to me to think of people having general tendencies or sets of beliefs and having something go against that doesn’t negate the other things.

like it makes more sense to me to say they are generally on the left and have specific weird and maybe contradictory opinions on specific issues that go against that rather than saying they are actually on the right.

because I know I am a weird jumbled up mess of thoughts and opinions

1 Like

Sure fair enough

I don’t personally put a huge amount of importance on individual constellations of views or on giving an indictment on exactly what everyone is and how good they are at being a socialist.

What matters is their effects and the relations they produce. In this case, the refusal to stand with comrades struggling for bodily autonomy and rights is similar to someone who claimed to be left wing but was against strikes. They can call themselves left wing, sure. But I would never organise with them or want anything to do with them as part of a socialist project.

And tbh if someone has crap views that are demonstrably anti-worker the comradely thing to do is make that known to them.

aye tbf I want being kept up at night thinking about whether X is really a socialist, just the way the conversation developed

I’d probably be of the opinion that I’d work with or even be pals with anyone whose views generally lined up with mine.

I think specifically bruenig has done a lot of properly superb journalism about important stuff and I think they’re generally on the right side of things, the abortion thing I just treat as a thing I don’t like and can’t understand. which most people would probably have.

tldr at some point in a conversation about something I am just repeating things I already said oops

1 Like

🤷🏼 Bit much. It’s fine.

Rationale/explanation
  • Half a day had passed without response since the last post, so no ongoing conversation to speak of at that point.
  • On the 3rd Sep, in an Aug monthly thread.
  • About something that was acknowledged as not specifically being UK politics, which is fine, there’s crossover, just felt like the thread had found a natural lull.
  • As we’ve seen there’s nothing at all to stop a convo bridging across threads.
  • That’s why I linked the new thread in at the end of the old one: for continuity (something I feel fairly keen about, and have called it out in the past when I’ve been following a thread and the convo seemed to have dried up but had actually moved on to a new thread but the OP of the new one hadn’t linked them up).

didn’t mean to be agro to parsefone it just came out a bit harsh.

also I’m over it, but two minutes had passed not half a day and it was kind of annoying to have the thread closed when I was in the middle of a reply.

1 Like

The post previous to my ‘handover post’ was made half a day before I posted. Your post then comes after mine. That might have been two minutes after? Dunno. The timestamps have shifted to being listed in hours rather than minutes. Didn’t see the little animation thing to show when someone’s writing a reply, though. If I had, I obviously would’ve held off from posting what I had. :innocent:

Can defo imagine it being annoying to have the thread actually locked when you’re in the middle of a reply. :triumph:

oh right, yeah I want taking about your handover post, that’s not something I care about in my heart.

it was slightly annoying but this is probably too much introspection.

bye now!

1 Like

Classical liberals like [insert description of dogmatic beliefs], the illiberal left like enforcing dogma

1 Like

do people calling themselves classic liberals know that shy-nazis call themselves classic liberals too? looks bad. id stop.

“high tory” “classical liberal”