The Next President?

No. You dont see the islamists promoted by for instance, Ken livingstone as far right?

Well, maybe homophobic, mysoginistic (is that the spelling???) , racist, anti democratic, authoritarian views are equally at home on the far left too??

We know the answer to that though dont we? Cigarette paper between the views of the hard left and hard right of course
 
Originally posted by clivex@Mar 5 2008, 03:54 PM
but still no examples?
Click to expand...
How about the article you posted about the debate, which was sensationalised rubbish. The issue has not resonated; that simple.

Whats more, the article basically comprised her regurgitating what Byron York (an unashanmedly conservative journalist at a conservative magazine) had said in his debate review.
 
It looks like it will be down to super delegates, whatever happens in Penn and the other remaining primaries.

Enter Bill.
 
Originally posted by clivex@Mar 5 2008, 03:54 PM
And back to previous post what do YOU think of the far lefts love in with the Islamists?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

I fear for your compass Clive.

Let me assure you the far left, have no love affair with any organisation that is run by any religious orthodoxy. They never have and never will, as it strikes at the very heart of their atheist conviction. Indeed, I remember attending many meetings in the early 90's when the threat posed by Islamic extremism and it's spread was identified by the far left long before liberals like Ken Livingstone, or deluded trendy trots had even noted it's existance, yet alone been able to define its nature, and analyse its implications.
 
Warbler

The far left is heavily fragmented, but you know as well as i do, but it is ONLY within that constituency that you find admiration for the islamists. In fairness many on the left had stood firm on this issue whereas some softer left have been awful (Hattersleys support for the execution of a novelist being a good example)


Let me assure you the far left, have no love affair with any organisation that is run by any religious orthodoxy
Click to expand...

SWP and WRP and their "we are all hezbollah now" banners? Shall i bring up a few of the genocidal Hitler influenced quotes from Hezbollahs revered leader too? Come off it...

You can dismiss Livingstone and others as "trendy trots" and Liberals (what??) if you like but few outside your fractional world will see them as being anything other than hard left...
 
In which case you'll know that the SWP and WRP are splinters deriving from the 4th international and thus the very epitomy of the kind of muddled Troty thinking that I don't personally regard as 'hard left' at all.

As I said it's a question of position, and having been well truly conditioned to think within the confines of the British definition of left/ right you won't be able to see outside of it. It's quite a neat little trick really, as what they do is mask it as presenting you with a choice, when all it is in effect, is different advocates of the same of choice. It helps therefore to take acceptable liberals like Livingstone, and present them as 'Red Ken' in order to define the boundaries within an established order. In a way it kind of controls one's thought process as it restricts the interrogating mind within the parameters that it lays out for you, where as only the more enquiring mind will venture over the boundaries to consider alternatives.

I take a global view for my orientation and thus regard all social capitalists as right wing. Livingstone is liberal, and all this 'Red Ken' stuff was just a tag used by the media to reinforce and perpetuate the narrowness of the right and left of right vista that the British establishment wants it's population to mainatain.

The Trot groups are infamous for factionalising, and indeed Trotsky himself was no better. I regard them as soft left and largely deluded newspaper sellers who prey on impressionable students. Shades of Gerry Healey and the 1950's (but that's a different story :laughing: and did they really think students were the new vanguard? or did they just happen to be young and some of them attractive :laughing: )

To suggest that extreme left philosophy embraces state sponsored or organised religion is plain daft, as religion is officially abolished in most communist structures. Stalin took great delight in turning the occasional high profile church into a public toilet, and even St Basils Cathedral became a museum to atheism. Religious leaders and church figures are usually amongst the first victims in any successful communist rising. You need look no further than 1936 for evidence of that.

The idea too that extreme right and left are virtual bedfellows (although often used as a pusedo piece of philosophical observation) is too simplistic, and wouldn't explain no end of historical clashes in just about any European country you care to mention, (well Spain, France, Germany, Russia, Yugoslavia, Italy). I can't think off hand of a 'red/ brown' alliance ever having taken place. Extreme right wing putschs usually make trade union leaders their first victims for instance.

I've campaigned against BNP candidates before, and I assure you, it isn't pleasent as they frequently bring in 'outsiders' and usually out number you. By contrast the right wing Labour Party do very little on the ground in my experience, and restrict their campaigns to distant media initiatives. Similarly, we've stood against and opposed with quite some vigour, religious politics embraced by deluded former Express journalists (Yvonne Ridley in case no one gets the reference). Indeed, the story runs that the Express swapped a few donkeys with the Taliban, in order to secure her release. Sounds like the Taliban got the better deal.

In short the extreme left do not, and never have embraced religion, and have moved more than any other political philosophy to eliminate its dangerous influences regardless of denomination. Historically its been both the extreme and the softer side of the right wing who've been more inclined to embrace it and use it's symbolism to promote themselves etc
 
In which case you'll know that the SWP and WRP are splinters deriving from the 4th international and thus the very epitomy of the kind of muddled Troty thinking that I don't personally regard as 'hard left' at all.
Click to expand...

What would they describe themselves as?

And where would you put them on the spectrum?


It helps therefore to take acceptable liberals like Livingstone, and present them as 'Red Ken' in order to define the boundaries within an established order
Click to expand...

His worshipping of Castro? just one example... Isnt that Ken presenting HIMSELF as Red Ken?

take a global view for my orientation and thus regard all social capitalists as right wing.
Click to expand...

Ok ok/ But do you really seriously believe that communism works? Its been an unmitigated and almost laughable (if not so tragic) disaster where ever its been imposed.

The idea too that extreme right and left are virtual bedfellows (although often used as a pusedo piece of philosophical observation) is too simplistic, and wouldn't explain no end of historical clashes in just about any European country you care to mention, (well Spain, France, Germany, Russia, Yugoslavia, Italy). I can't think off hand of a 'red/ brown' alliance ever having taken place. Extreme right wing putschs usually make trade union leaders their first victims for instance
Click to expand...

National Socialists?

As for trade unions....exactly the same happened under Castro. how were the unions prospering in the eastern bloc (before lech Walensa)
 
I'm conscious the thread is well off topic so will make this side track my last.

What would SWP describe themselves as? Well I've heard them try a few amusing lines of grandiose self-justification before. Most accept that they are Trots whilst glossing over their Menshevik connection. They posture as a kind of acceptable face of communism, whilst also campaigning against it.

Their newspaper strap line used to be "Neither Washington nor Moscow, but International Socialism" (they maintained this years after it was apparent that Moscow was fast becoming a bigger manifestation of rabid capitalism than Washington) and so the 'neither' 'nor' business did look abit stupid given that they were presenting 2 of the same, but then accurate contemporary appraisal of world events was never a strong point of theirs. Indeed, where as we've seen Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist and Maoist states, (I regard Cuba as different) we've never seen Trotsky's great contribution to communist theory (Permanent Revolution) spawn a Trotskyist state yet.

What would I describe them as? often muddled, inconsistent, and naive opportunists. Politically they're the equivilant of a cuckoo that seeks to use other birds' nests. I'd regard them as soft left, although they have been known to take out liberal positions, though usually by accident through their failure to diagnose the true nature of a threat.

Livingstone's admiration for Castro is actually quite indicative of something else, as he is fond of referring to him. Where necessary, and in context, the hard left will too, but for the most part, we tend to refer to Cuba and omit the individual. It is of course a fundamental pillar of Marxism that revolution is built on the masses and composed of largely ordinary people. Without the people's support, there would never have been a revolution. I'd be very surprised if Castro himself has ever lost sight of this, though not the slightest bit surprised to find that Livingstone has.

The idea of whether communism works would require a very lengthy reply and going into all sorts of philosophical areas regarding societies outputs and priorities, historical contexts's, and that's before you ask the question as to whether capitalism does either. It would in honesty require a response of book sized proportions (and indeed, there's no shortage of such literature).

The question of trade unions however, does merit a special reply, as although Trots love them and used to frequently turn up on picket lines regardless of memebership or nature of dispute (in the hope of selling a few stupid papers) the hard left aren't anywhere near so indulging. In fact elements of the hard left regard them as a concession to an organised proliterate which was primarily designed to appease and splinter the mass movement. By their very nature many of them are naturally inclined towards conservatism and preserving things as they are. Rosa Luxemburg famously described them "as supporting a worker, like a rope does a hanging man". In that respect they are seen as agents of the establishment, and the hard left will regard them as essentially conservative instruments.

Poland is good example, as Solidarnosc were essentially a counter revolutionary right wing reaction. The image of Gdansk shipyard workers kneeling and praying in front of catholic icons wasn't lost on the hard left, who recognised the movement for what it was. The SWP (bless them) didn't, and campaigned in support of them. When they eventually prevailed however, far from falling into Trotsky's arms as they thought they would, Lech Walesa et al were hotfooting it to see Thatcher, Reagan and the Pope.

For this reason the trade union movement has been largely distrusted by the far left, although Trot groups have proven adept at infiltrating it historically as indeed they have the occasional council and Labour party (in fact there's a new dynamic which is going on with both these at the moment, and a different type of enterist group is prosecuting it, with the attendant block vote starting to emerge, if they did but realise it).

The model usually invoked by the hard left has its origins in the 'Workers and Soldiers Soviets' which were local meetings and where the democratic input comes from. Essentially, it's not too far removed from what we would call a local authority or trades council in this country, only that it's more open . It's essentially a multi tiered 'feed up' mechanism.

I wouldn't regard National Socialism as an example in honesty. I think its more of a tag line in truth (and a misleading one at that) used for short term expediency in its infancy, which given the economic crisis in 1933 had the capacity to reach out more broadly, until such time as nazism could consolidate its grip and thus permit the true nature of the regime to reveal itself. If it were an alliance, then it wouldn't explain why the Nazi's were so keen to kill communists, and leaders of organised labour. It wouldn't explain the huge risk they took in Barborosa either, as invading your ally wouldn't be a sensible piece of strategic thinking.
 
Without the people's support, there would never have been a revolution. I'd be very surprised if Castro himself has ever lost sight of this, though not the slightest bit surprised to find that Livingstone has
Click to expand...
.

Havent read all of this.....but obvious question

Why didnt he get a proper mandate through elections and why ban all travel for native cubans?

What better advert for communism would there have been if he had been elected time and again

Its obvious why he didnt do so

Similarity betwen all the groupings you mention, including the far right?

Complete contempt for democracy

and human rights

we've never seen Trotsky's great contribution to communist theory (Permanent Revolution) spawn a Trotskyist state yet.
Click to expand...

And we never will... No one wants it. its splitting hairs imo to suggest that would be any different from all the failed experiments with socialism we have seen over the years
 
I disagree Gareth. Both, in particular Florida, are massive states for the general election itself. There are serious rumblings that the Democratic Party are not happy if in some way their votes are not counted….Obama or Clinton will want to do well in Florida in the general election. They won’t if the on the ground party is not supportive or resentful due to this.

Whats more there are a lot of delegates up for grabs….if either of the contestants could win these states and or Pennsylvania it would make they a very attractive candidate for the super delegates……making it a more obvious reason for supporting one over the other.

Its not ideal but in the long run (in terms of the general election) I think it will help.
 
If the reasons for disallowing the results of those primaries were good enough a couple of months ago, they're good enough now. It goes to the whole integrity of the primary system. Going back on those decisions will make the Dem party as a whole look like fools, and the Reps will - quite rightly - be loving every minute with their consensus candidate ready for battle.
 
Ask Tough Questions? Yes, They Can!
By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, March 4, 2008; A02

SAN ANTONIO It took many months and the mockery of “Saturday Night Live” to make it happen, but the lumbering beast that is the press corps finally roused itself from its slumber Monday and greeted Barack Obama with a menacing growl.

The day before primaries in Ohio and Texas that could effectively seal the Democratic presidential nomination for him, a smiling Obama strode out to a news conference at a veterans facility here. But the grin was quickly replaced by the surprised look of a man bitten by his own dog.

Reporters from the Associated Press and Reuters went after him for his false denial that a campaign aide had held a secret meeting with Canadian officials over Obama’s trade policy. A trio of Chicago reporters pummeled him with questions about the corruption trial this week of a friend and supporter. The New York Post piled on with a question about him losing the Jewish vote.

Obama responded with the classic phrases of a politician in trouble. “That was the information that I had at the time. . . . Those charges are completely unrelated to me. . . . I have said that that was a mistake. . . . The fact pattern remains unchanged.”

When those failed, Obama tried another approach. “We’re running late,” the candidate said, and then he disappeared behind a curtain.

Before he beat his hasty retreat, however, Obama found time to assign blame for the tough questions suddenly coming his way. “The Clinton campaign has been true to its word in employing a ‘kitchen sink’ strategy,” he protested. “There are, what, three or four things a day?”

Spoken like a man who had just been hit on the head with a heavy piece of porcelain…

“I don’t have any preliminary statement,” Obama said as he began his news conference, encouraging reporters to “just dive in.” That was a mistake.

Tom Raum of the Associated Press led off with a question about whether an Obama aide had told Canadians not to take seriously the candidate’s public rhetoric critical of the NAFTA trade agreement. “Let me, let me, let me, let me just be absolutely clear what happened,” Obama answered, explaining that the meeting was a “courtesy” and involved no “winks and nods.”

Then an agitator — columnist Carol Marin with the Chicago Sun-Times — broke in. Marin, a visitor to the Obama entourage who accused the regulars of being too “quiet,” accused the candidate of concealing details about fundraisers Rezko had for him and a real estate transaction between the two.

“I don’t think it’s fair to suggest somehow that we’ve been trying to hide the ball on this,” Obama answered. But this only provoked a noisy back-and-forth between Marin, Sun-Times colleague Lynn Sweet and Michael Flannery from Chicago’s CBS affiliate. “How many fundraisers? . . . Who was there? . . . Disclosure of the closing documents?”

Obama, while repeating his formulation that it was “a boneheaded move” to do business with Rezko, tried to shut down the requests for more information. “These requests, I think, could just go on forever,” he said. “At some point, what we need to try to do is respond to what’s pertinent.”

Reporters, however, had a different idea of what was pertinent, and the questions about Rezko, NAFTA and other unpleasant subjects continued to come. An aide called out “last question,” and Obama made his move for the exit — only for reporters to shout after him in protest. “C’mon, guys,” he pleaded. “I just answered, like, eight questions.”

The questioning, however, has only just begun.
Click to expand...

Would appear that windbag finds direct questions difficult to deal with... poor thing.

I mean EIGHT QUESTIONS.... Wow!

Who's hand would you want on the button?
 
Another blunder from the Obama campaign today as a staffer called Hillary Clinton "a monster" in an interview with "The Scotsman."

This in the wake of the seemingly costly NAFTA/Canada blunder last week. If he keeps this up, Hillary will eat him alive.
 
If Florida and Mitchigan re-vote that is a serious boost for Clinton while Pennsylvania possibly her strongest possible state yet.
 
Said staffer has been resigned.

Did you hear about how the candidate who's advisors were telling the Canadians not to worry about NAFTA may have been Clinton's as well as Obama's? Funny stuff.

Only worry for McCain is that everyone's going to ignore him for the next few months...
 
yep, imo you've covered that correctly. But, imo has clearly been worth FA, and I hold my hands up :P I've got a damn sight more wrong on this election than I ever got right --- Hands up



Clive


If you wish to indulge me on other subjects, I feel the most approprite way would involve starting new threads (or PM). You should know by now, you are hardly my public enemy numer 1 :D
 
Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Mar 8 2008, 12:29 AM
Said staffer has been resigned.

Did you hear about how the candidate who's advisors were telling the Canadians not to worry about NAFTA may have been Clinton's as well as Obama's? Funny stuff.

Only worry for McCain is that everyone's going to ignore him for the next few months...
Click to expand...
Could be a blessing for McCain, Gareth. The Democratic race is only going to get nastier from here to April 22. A lot of things can and will happen before then, and I'm sure McCain will be happy to let the Dems slug it out.

Neither candidate will live up to their NAFTA tough-talk in Ohio.
 
Back
Top