You need to read some more detailed history Flaneur: the idea that the abolition of the slave trade - let alone the end of racial slavery itself - was a gracious gift handed down freely by a bunch of middle-class and aristocratic Brits is not only regarded as ridiculous by historians now - it is deeply offensive to the many slaves and their supporters all over the world whose struggles actually brought about the end of racial slavery. The right, of course, fought tooth and nail to perpetuate it - just as they fought against all the left projects I mentioned that have in reality improved the lives of countless millions. Of course there are temporary reversals - like the fascists in the 30s, or Trump, or Bolsanaro, or brexit and the current UK government - but they never succeed in long reversing the left’s gains.
On the irrationalism of the right, and it’s links with religion, by the way, I know you also read my posts on the quakers (because you replied to them) - for example I said
There are also long-standing links between (mainly dissident) christian movements and socialism, so that although the most common links by far are between religion and the right, there are also minority splinters like ‘liberation theology’ in South America (an influence on the current Pope) and the quakers in the UK…
So your comment here is disingenuous. But if anybody has a sound evidence-based argument that right-wing thought is not generally, historically linked with irrationalism, or ‘authority’ (of rank or might), or superstition/religion, then I’d like to hear it. So far in this discussion all the actual evidence adduced to ‘prove’ right-wing points - like the supposed examples of ‘cancel culture’ that all turned out to be completely vacuous - have ended up actually evidencing left-wing perspectives. There’s a lesson there.
My point was to rebut any suggestion that all reform is driven by the Left, using the example you provided! And
was, of course, not what I said nor indeed meant, implied, suggested or hinted
What’s the argumentative device called whereby you pretend someone has said something quite different to what he actually said, and then attack what-you-claim-was said? Straw man, perhaps?
And what about no-platforming? When it turned out that it’s been a very successful tool in the view of New Socialist for example, you turned your attention to “cancel culture” - which also is alive and kicking, albeit regretted by people like Barack Obama. If you think it doesn’t exist, what do you rely on for your information? Even the BBC knows about it! What is the cost of 'cancel culture'? - BBC News
As for “dissident” Christian movements - Christianity is only Christianity if it’s dissident!
That’s why and many of our friends have stopped voting for them.
The old Red Wall will soon find out that their promises are as useful as a chocolate teapot.
The problem with “America” (I’m a Yank) is TV. EVERYBODY watches it and so its news-content has become “authenticated”.
Worse yet, the politicians have taken that as an exact truth. Which is why they peddle their notions with “great remonstration” (since they are all good “actors”) on what I suggest is more appropriately a “boob-tube”. (And French TV is no different.)
I have rarely seen a more accurate appellation for that particular device …
Hi LeRicain - sorry for delayed reply - I’ve been away for a week helping my daughter move into her new apartment in Strasbourg, combined with a mini-holiday there (which I needed after carrying all her stuff up to the third floor!).
Your comment is interesting in relation to another SF thread on Facebook, in which I’ve been arguing that much criticism of social media is misplaced - NOT because most social media isn’t harmful in many ways, but because it might well be less harmful than conventional media like TV - AND that the underlying issue with both is not any inherent quality of the media, but the concentration of ownership, control and influence in the hands of a very small part of society (wealthy and powerful corporations and individuals) either directly or indirectly via advertising and lobbying spend.
I also found the following article interesting in relation to this discussion, especially the conclusion:
If the US defends its democracy, such as it is, and protects the voting rights of all eligible adults, the right will continue to be a shrinking minority. Their one chance of overturning that requires overturning democracy itself.
It was of course ever thus: the best concise definition of fascism is ‘the continuation of capitalism by undemocratic means’. Hayek (Thatcher’s guru) was explicit about his belief that in order to preserve capitalism democracy had to be discontinued if necessary - hence his, and Thatcher’s explicit support for Pinochet’s overthrow of democracy - and much of Thatcher’s UK domestic policy too.
It’s exactly the same pattern that led to fascism in Europe in the 30s: the perceived threat to existing wealth and power from the left (expressed in the article in terms of non-white voters, because of the US’ racialised social formation) coupled with ideological and economic crisis in the status-quo, leads a significant number of people to support violent oppression.
You’re right when you say “perceived” threat, because – as I’ve said before – the left is essentially a spent force in the UK and the US; France, too. All the left does now is write hysterical articles in the “harmful” conventional media like the Guardian (the article you linked to being a prime example) when democracy produces the “wrong” result on a topic like abortion.
I should hope that education was getting better! but that’s a slightly different issue. I’m thinking of a general inability to argue, fostered by this notion that young people need to be protected in universities from any idea that might make them feel uncomfortable. It’s the generation above – the lecturers and those in control of the teaching, largely from the Left – who are inculcating a mindset without providing at the same time the alternatives.
Interesting that you (rightly) see highly educated people, such as university lecturers, as ‘largely from the left’ - and (also rightly) that young people tend to be both better educated and more left-wing - but fail to draw the obvious conclusion that the more you actually learn, and the more you engage in rational analysis and discourse, the more inclined to the left you tend to become.
Why? Surely Marijkeh’s logic here was faultless?:
Tim’s post = ‘Hasty generalisation’ (use of one story in one town - that by the way nowhere mentions young people,let alone their level of education!) to characterise all young people all over the world).
Marijkeh’s response - Genuinely world-wide and well-documented environmental damage indisputably propagated mainly by previous generations - good evidence that the previous post was indeed ‘hasty generalisation’. Good, rational argument.
