babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Gandhi, King and Mandela all used nonviolence-that still doesn't mean any white priveleged person, such as yourself, has the right to demand that the dispossessed be nonviolent. No one who is a beneficiary in any way at all of the existing order is entitled to lecture the powerless on their choice of tactics.
So, anything goes, as long as the rioters say so?
That response sounds like the words a British cabinet minister defending the Amritsar Massacre or Bloody Sunday. There is a lot of moral arrogance in the tone.
Gandhi, King and Mandela all used nonviolence-that still doesn't mean any white priveleged person, such as yourself, has the right to demand that the dispossessed be nonviolent. No one who is a beneficiary in any way at all of the existing order is entitled to lecture the powerless on their choice of tactics.
So, anything goes, as long as the rioters say so?
You sound like a British cabinet minister defending the Amritsar Massacre or Bloody Sunday. There is a lot of moral arrogance in your tone.
Well, you seem to be saying that whatever the rioters do as an expression of their anger is A-OK with you.
It's not my place as a beneficiary of white middle-class privelege to judge those who revolt with any great depth. I hope everyone chooses nonviolence, but its arrogant for anyone who isn't powerless or oppressed themselves to actually demand it. Only those fighting the machine from that standpoint are entitled to judge.
Have you as yet condemned the Metropolitan police for their murder of Mr. Duggan, the event that sparked this uprising? Do you ever condemn what the forces of power do to preserve their power? Would you have condemned what the British Army did on Bloody Sunday(at a NONVIOLENT protest)or at Amritsar? Or what the South African regime did at Sharpeville, where they shot nonviolent protesters in the back AS THE PROTESTERS ran away?
Until the forces of power never again do anything like that, neither you or I are entitled to judge those who resist them. We have the blood of all those acts on our hands.
"Obey the law," of course. That's what "little fat Dave" said when the extremist Social Credit regime went ahead and passed all of their monstrous and repressive legislation back in 1983 ... and tens of thousands of people protested on the lawn of the legislature in Victoria.
In "Pardon the Disturbance" Eduardo Galeano wrote: "The lords of the world only condemn violence when others practice it." Those who agree with the powerful are likely to share such views.
Actually it was their own rep Munro who sold them out, he admitted it later; Barrett's advise to obey the law aftr unsuccesfully fighting against it was probably wise. Whatever his failings he was saint compared to every 'socialist' who ever won office by force, and was probably the best premier we ever had. Don't drink too much of your own compradres' bathwater.
I'd also appreciate it if you didn't make fun of his minor weight problems or relative lack of height. Doubt he'd care much but others might.
It's not my place as a beneficiary of white privelege to judge those who revolts with any great depth. I hope everyone chooses nonviolence, but its arrogant for anyone who isn't powerless or oppressed themselves to actually demand it. Only those fighting the machine from that standpoint are entitled to judge.
Has anyone in Tottenham killed anyone, other than when the police murdered Mr. Duggan?
And again, how can anyone who has benefited from the existing order be entitled to judge those who resist it?
I oppose violence...but I don't have the moral authority to tell the powerless to make it easy for the powerful to kill them.
You apparently don't care what the powerful do in the name of holding power. Morality is only to be applied to the rebels. Your replies, Sven, truly mark you as a person who sees himself as one of Galeano's "lords of the world"-even though, in truth, you personally gain nothing from defending the existing order and all the world's police.
Oh, and 6079 Smith, I agree that what is happening in Tottenham is tragic...but that still doesn't entitle me to make sanctimonious comments about "rioters".
Has anyone in Tottenham killed anyone, other than when the police murdered Mr. Duggan?
And again, how can anyone who has benefited from the existing order be entitled to judge those who resist it?
I oppose violence...but I don't have the moral authority to tell the powerless to make it easy for the powerful to kill them.
You apparently don't care what the powerful do in the name of holding power. Morality is only to be applied to the rebels.
Oh, and 6079 Smith, I agree that what is happening in Tottenham is tragic...but that still doesn't entitle me to make sanctimonious comments about "rioters".
You are confusing two things and putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that I "don't care what the powerful do in the name of holding power."
I'm questioning the outer limits of your stance that non-rioters have no say regarding any actions the rioters may take. And, as such, I simply asked you: Would that include killing people?
I hope nobody gets killed. Anywhere. But you ask that question as though these people can simply be assumed to be more violent than the police, or more reckless than the system that drove them to this-as if, should they take extreme actions, we can simply assume that those actions are unjustified and that we, children of privilege, are entitled to review their choices as if we are the political equivalent of theatre critics.
Events like Tottenham don't happen in isolation. You have to analyze the whole combination of occurrences, and understand the whole history. We simply CAN'T just say "it's wrong that they did that", and say that as if its ever that simple or that what ever they did can be taken as a singular moment unconnected to the past and the rest of the present.
You and I, Sven, are priveleged. Neither of us could have any knowledge of what it feels like to be powerless. The difference between our responses to this is that I remember that to be the case.
I'm against attacks on innocent people, and especially against children. I do have some limits. But you're not really concerned about morality here. You just want to judge the people in this situation without knowing anything about their reality.
Middle-class people, especially middle-class white people who have never experienced police brutality, or racism, or economic exploitation are obligated to shut up and listen-we have no moral authority in a situation like Tottenham.
1. "Obey the law" is what the powerful say to the powerless. It's what they always say. If people on a discussion board agree with "Obey the law" and try to ridicule those who think otherwise then they're also siding with the powerful. There's really no point in discussing it as people are obviously on opposite sides of the social divide.
2. Barrett's political capitulation before the real fight even began (later that year) provided a real life example of the failure of social democratic leadership at a time of crisis. It was very instructive. His public comments helped to demobilize the thousands of people moved to action and demonstration. Class treason I would call that. Munroe's betrayal down the road was only the denuement.
3. I expect that if poor people rioted here in Canada we'd probably get the same blanket condemnation directed towards them from many so-called "progressives" ... and dead silence on the daily violence of a society that keeps the rich rich indefinitely.
Barrett's capitulation also helped ensure his party's defeat in the next provincial election. Nobody who backed Bennett's hardline position on the issues involved in that strike would have voted NDP no matter what. Only people who passionately backed the strike were going to do so. At that point in B.C., there was no such thing as a centrist.
And Sven, if you really want to stop "riots", then don't defend the things that cause them...like right-wing economic policies that always increase unemployment, or savage cuts in the social wage, or the scapegoating of visible minorities by right-wing governments.
Then again...you probably think that everyone in Tottenham was just driven by "envy"-that they couldn't have had any REAL grievances or genuinely been victims of oppression at all.
When violence like this takes place, Western liberal tends to view it a) as decontextualized (unrelated to decades of public policy and neglect, police brutality and enforced poverty); and b) homogeneous (motivated by a single emotion rather than variegated, paradoxical and complex). Such a move allows those insulated from such violence by geography or privilege to cast judgements upon the rioters, with whom we have little shared experience or history. They've gone "too far" (how far is too far when you have nothing to lose and have been told, repeatedly, by society that you are worth nothing?). We point, sanctmoniously, at the non-violent Civil Rights movement in America, completely ignoring its concomitant riots, violence and aggression. It's easy to set arbitrary limits--murder, assault, thievery--when you are removed from place and history.
Make no mistake: the violence seen by London over the last four nights is a spike in the trace pattern of capitalism. It's the shadow cast by the violence enacted by an economic system which not only demands inequality, it tests the limits of its margins.
Let me answer Sven here. Of course its wrong to kill people, especially the innocent.(as innocent as any of us ever get) But as a rightwing libertarian and one who apparently believes the creed of inequality and law of the jungle (which is all libertarianism can ever end at, in the real world), you couldn't possibly be sincere in believing invoking absolute nonviolence, up to the point of accepting a lifetime of hardship or suicide, and the slow strangling of your own community. If a few already hardened individuals go beyond what most others would and purposely harm bystanders that cannot be held against all of them --not according to even the most modest liberal interpretation of the law. Others you can can call collateral damage, or unfortunate casualties of war, if it helps you understand. Difference between this and all the organized wars supported by rightwingers is its based on very real injustices which cannot be escaped or denied by most these protestors/rioters. Injustices which have never been addressed except by further screw tightening by those who are supposed to represent them.
Barrett's capitulation also helped ensure his party's defeat in the next provincial election. Nobody who backed Bennett's hardline position on the issues involved in that strike would have voted NDP no matter what. Only people who passionately backed the strike were going to do so. At that point in B.C., there was no such thing as a centrist.
You buying Beltovs' BS too Ken, or do you know something that us lifetime residents of BC never heard? Or are you becming a kneejerk Marxist too? My mother was personally affected by Munros collapse too, but always knew who was actually behind it. And how little most others cared after it was over.
Please don't compare Barrett with todays breed of neo-liberal frauds, whatever his very real flaws, not unless you want to hold every political leader up to similarly impossible high standards. Ones in fact which most supposedly progressive voters rarely hold up consistently, when it comes to other peoples need to 'compromise' with reality. The lack of solidarity with others struggles combined with unrealistic expectations about our own have been a deadly combination for the left over the last thirty years of retreat and defeat. But then none of us knew how far it would go back then.
Let me answer Sven here. Of course its wrong to kill people, especially the innocent.(as innocent as any of us ever get) But as a rightwing libertarian and one who apparently believes the creed of inequality and law of the jungle (which is all libertarianism can ever end at, in the real world), you couldn't possibly be sincere in believing in absolute nonviolence, up to the point of accepting a lifetime of hardship or suicide, and the slow strangling of your own community. If a few already hardened individuals go beyond what most others would and purposely harm bystanders that cannot be held against all of them --not according to even the most modest liberal interpretation of the law. Others you can can call collateral damage, or unfortunate casualties of war, if it helps you understand. Difference between this and all the wars supported by rightwingers is its based on very real injustices which cannot be escaped by most these protestors/rioters. Ones which have never been addressed except by further screw tightening by those who are supposed to represent them.
I'm not a libertarian purist. I think that society has a moral obligation to help the indigent. Where I think I part ways with many progressives is with a broad extension of similar state benefits to the middle class. But, I don't think that latter aspect of my views is terribly relevant in this case because, as I understand the events in the UK, the people rioting are, indeed, among the poorest of UK residents.
1. "Obey the law" is what the powerful say to the powerless. It's what they always say. If people on a discussion board agree with "Obey the law" and try to ridicule those who think otherwise then they're also siding with the powerful. There's really no point in discussing it as people are obviously on opposite sides of the social divide.
2. Barrett's political capitulation before the real fight even began (later that year) provided a real life example of the failure of social democratic leadership at a time of crisis. It was very instructive. His public comments helped to demobilize the thousands of people moved to action and demonstration. Class treason I would call that. Munroe's betrayal down the road was only the denuement.
3. I expect that if poor people rioted here in Canada we'd probably get the same blanket condemnation directed towards them from many so-called "progressives" ... and dead silence on the daily violence of a society that keeps the rich rich indefinitely.
I'll answer your predictable responses in another thread, as I get tired of the bs slung here by kneejerk combatants on both sides of most issues here and this is a late thread drift. One time at Babble some balance could usually be found -eventually- if not overall consensus, as well as debate which went beyond partisan point scoring.
And once again you should at least try to apologise for your childishly personal insults, or are those sort of words foreign to the fundamentalist left vocabulary as well?
It's also very easy to analyze this when it is not your neighbourhood that is being torched.
Sorry for being naive and all, but I'd like it to stop - preferably with some positive resolution - but there is nothing good about this, and it can't continue as it is. It needs to end somehow.
Actually it was their own rep Munro who sold them out, he admitted it later
Actually I thought that was pretty obvious to everyone the day it happened.
My mother, who was eventually forced from her job because of it, and then forced to sell her home for much less than its value, always suspected but it took a few years to come out. The Labour movements leaders unfortunately are sometimes their own worst enemies, but OC the politician trying to balance interests in an actively hostile anti-labour (green etc) environment is the one who always gets the blame. Same on the right, but they at least pay them better when they retire and sometimes defend them against the oppositions most excessive charges. Ya Barrett was nothing but a sellout and therefore calling him a pig is ok. Sure.
It's also very easy to analyze this when it is not your neighbourhood that is being torched. Sorry for being naive and all, but I'd like it to stop - preferably with some positive resolution - but there is nothing good about this, and it can't continue as it is. It needs to end somehow.
Of course it's easier if your own home isn't being torched. But then its easy to ignore others who homes were simply taken away years ago in the Thatcher revolution, and sold to yuppies, and never had a chance to get another since. It could all end easily if their greivances are recognised and the middleclass realisae that they can't keep bailing out the rich by selling out the poor. (and undermining their own safety net in the process) The poor just don't have anymore give to give anymore -they're poorer than ever- while the rich always held all the excess. By definition. The scarcely concealed racism among the otherwise polite has to be honestly addressed too, starting with some recognition its still a widespread problem. Better education, more equality, more contact and time could do the rest.
I am saying that the situation is probably a bit different for people who are living through that violence right now. And I am also saying that it is not a sustainable situation. Either it will go back to the way it was or something will change, but the violence can only last so long.
Sorry but that wasn't apparent to me by your statements. You just said it couldn't go on. And I get too much cross flack to know what others are really thinking otherwise. The curse of tryiong to find some common rational ground ANYWHERE politically. Especially when things are spilling over, as I have warned for years.
Anyhow the rioting won't go on forever either, even though we all know the underlyting problems won't be addressed in any real way. Not until some of the truly powerful regain some sense that they too can lose more than they gain by dividing communities, and learn to accept their own limits like other grownups. I doubt I'll live to see that great day.
ETA: I will apolgise for my unremitting need to explain everything to death too, but that too is a response to the never ending battle for control online. There are better less destructive ways to actual reform too but I doubt I'll ever see that day either.
I can analyze things to death too, and I agree completely with your last statement.
I just think with all the talk of what this means and what the rioters should and shouldn't do (as if anyone is paying attention) some people are missing what a dangerous, unpredictable and unstable situation it is. I can imagine there must be a lot of absolutely fucking terrified people over there right now.
I am far more concerned about the threat of loss of life, injury, and the damage to peoples' homes and livelihood than I am about how this furthers the revolution.
Fuck, if it's gonna come it will come soon enough, and I doubt it will depend on which of us is right or wrong.
Let me answer Sven here. Of course its wrong to kill people, especially the innocent.(as innocent as any of us ever get) But as a rightwing libertarian and one who apparently believes the creed of inequality and law of the jungle (which is all libertarianism can ever end at, in the real world), you couldn't possibly be sincere in believing in absolute nonviolence, up to the point of accepting a lifetime of hardship or suicide, and the slow strangling of your own community. If a few already hardened individuals go beyond what most others would and purposely harm bystanders that cannot be held against all of them --not according to even the most modest liberal interpretation of the law. Others you can can call collateral damage, or unfortunate casualties of war, if it helps you understand. Difference between this and all the wars supported by rightwingers is its based on very real injustices which cannot be escaped by most these protestors/rioters. Ones which have never been addressed except by further screw tightening by those who are supposed to represent them.
I'm not a libertarian purist. I think that society has a moral obligation to help the indigent. Where I think I part ways with many progressives is with a broad extension of similar state benefits to the middle class. But, I don't think that latter aspect of my views is terribly relevant in this case because, as I understand the events in the UK, the people rioting are, indeed, among the poorest of UK residents.
Yeah they are, for the most part. And the racism in our old home countries is unfortunately even worse than here, from the looks of it. Anyhow, I should have been in bed 2 hours ago. You must be a very early riser or natural born nighthawk like me.
I can analyze things to death too, and I agree completely with your last statement.
I just think with all the talk of what this means and what the rioters should and shouldn't do (as if anyone is paying attention) some people are missing what a dangerous, unpredictable and unstable situation it is. I can imagine there must be a lot of absolutely fucking terrified people over there right now.
I am far more concerned about the threat of loss of life, injury, and the damage to peoples' homes and livelihood than I am about how this furthers the revolution.
Fuck, if it's gonna come it will come soon enough, and I doubt it will depend on which of us is right or wrong.
I'd be frightened too and I've never been a revolutionary in the traditional meaning, but if this social refusal by our elites carries on much further, which it will unless met more effectively, violent revolution may become necessary and eventually unavoidable. I won't shed any tears for the elites if they keep playing with this fire, and the middleclass, who never take them to account, will just have to duck the fireworks for themselves.
"A member of Iran's Majlis (parliament) says the recent wave of protests sweeping over British cities is indicative of an intellectual awakening in Britain.."
"A member of Iran's Majlis (parliament) says the recent wave of protests sweeping over British cities is indicative of an intellectual awakening in Britain.."
Oh Fuck Iran's Parliament! As if THEY can seriously talk about 'intellectual awakenings' to anyone past the age of six. Christ, the 'radical' left has got alot of growing up to do too. No wonder the world just keeps spinning further out of EVERYONE'S control. Goodnight dreamers.
Unfortunatley it's not really the elite and middle class that are most affected here. And again, whatever my thoughts on the matter are now, I am not sure I'd see it the same way if it was in the middle of that mess with my windows boarded up and me afraid for my family.
But anyway, here's somethning else from someone who is there:
That response sounds like the words a British cabinet minister defending the Amritsar Massacre or Bloody Sunday. There is a lot of moral arrogance in the tone.
(edited to de-personalize my response).
Well, you seem to be saying that whatever the rioters do as an expression of their anger is A-OK with you.
Would you draw the line anywhere?
It's not my place as a beneficiary of white middle-class privelege to judge those who revolt with any great depth. I hope everyone chooses nonviolence, but its arrogant for anyone who isn't powerless or oppressed themselves to actually demand it. Only those fighting the machine from that standpoint are entitled to judge.
Have you as yet condemned the Metropolitan police for their murder of Mr. Duggan, the event that sparked this uprising? Do you ever condemn what the forces of power do to preserve their power? Would you have condemned what the British Army did on Bloody Sunday(at a NONVIOLENT protest)or at Amritsar? Or what the South African regime did at Sharpeville, where they shot nonviolent protesters in the back AS THE PROTESTERS ran away?
Until the forces of power never again do anything like that, neither you or I are entitled to judge those who resist them. We have the blood of all those acts on our hands.
Actually it was their own rep Munro who sold them out, he admitted it later; Barrett's advise to obey the law aftr unsuccesfully fighting against it was probably wise. Whatever his failings he was saint compared to every 'socialist' who ever won office by force, and was probably the best premier we ever had. Don't drink too much of your own compradres' bathwater.
I'd also appreciate it if you didn't make fun of his minor weight problems or relative lack of height. Doubt he'd care much but others might.
Again, does anyone really think people just got together in the bar one night and decided to do this?
What is going on is the result of chronic abuse and people stretched to the breaking point. It is complete failure and an absolute tragedy.
There is nothing good about it. It is completely unsustainable and somehow it has to be resolved.
Talking about what it means and where it is going and what is allowed is pointless - because it IS happening.
So, even killing people would be okay?
Actually I thought that was pretty obvious to everyone the day it happened.
Has anyone in Tottenham killed anyone, other than when the police murdered Mr. Duggan?
And again, how can anyone who has benefited from the existing order be entitled to judge those who resist it?
I oppose violence...but I don't have the moral authority to tell the powerless to make it easy for the powerful to kill them.
You apparently don't care what the powerful do in the name of holding power. Morality is only to be applied to the rebels. Your replies, Sven, truly mark you as a person who sees himself as one of Galeano's "lords of the world"-even though, in truth, you personally gain nothing from defending the existing order and all the world's police.
Oh, and 6079 Smith, I agree that what is happening in Tottenham is tragic...but that still doesn't entitle me to make sanctimonious comments about "rioters".
You are confusing two things and putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that I "don't care what the powerful do in the name of holding power."
I'm questioning the outer limits of your stance that non-rioters have no say regarding any actions the rioters may take. And, as such, I simply asked you: Would that include killing people?
I hope nobody gets killed. Anywhere. But you ask that question as though these people can simply be assumed to be more violent than the police, or more reckless than the system that drove them to this-as if, should they take extreme actions, we can simply assume that those actions are unjustified and that we, children of privilege, are entitled to review their choices as if we are the political equivalent of theatre critics.
Events like Tottenham don't happen in isolation. You have to analyze the whole combination of occurrences, and understand the whole history. We simply CAN'T just say "it's wrong that they did that", and say that as if its ever that simple or that what ever they did can be taken as a singular moment unconnected to the past and the rest of the present.
You and I, Sven, are priveleged. Neither of us could have any knowledge of what it feels like to be powerless. The difference between our responses to this is that I remember that to be the case.
I'm against attacks on innocent people, and especially against children. I do have some limits. But you're not really concerned about morality here. You just want to judge the people in this situation without knowing anything about their reality.
Middle-class people, especially middle-class white people who have never experienced police brutality, or racism, or economic exploitation are obligated to shut up and listen-we have no moral authority in a situation like Tottenham.
1. "Obey the law" is what the powerful say to the powerless. It's what they always say. If people on a discussion board agree with "Obey the law" and try to ridicule those who think otherwise then they're also siding with the powerful. There's really no point in discussing it as people are obviously on opposite sides of the social divide.
2. Barrett's political capitulation before the real fight even began (later that year) provided a real life example of the failure of social democratic leadership at a time of crisis. It was very instructive. His public comments helped to demobilize the thousands of people moved to action and demonstration. Class treason I would call that. Munroe's betrayal down the road was only the denuement.
3. I expect that if poor people rioted here in Canada we'd probably get the same blanket condemnation directed towards them from many so-called "progressives" ... and dead silence on the daily violence of a society that keeps the rich rich indefinitely.
Barrett's capitulation also helped ensure his party's defeat in the next provincial election. Nobody who backed Bennett's hardline position on the issues involved in that strike would have voted NDP no matter what. Only people who passionately backed the strike were going to do so. At that point in B.C., there was no such thing as a centrist.
And Sven, if you really want to stop "riots", then don't defend the things that cause them...like right-wing economic policies that always increase unemployment, or savage cuts in the social wage, or the scapegoating of visible minorities by right-wing governments.
Then again...you probably think that everyone in Tottenham was just driven by "envy"-that they couldn't have had any REAL grievances or genuinely been victims of oppression at all.
When violence like this takes place, Western liberal tends to view it a) as decontextualized (unrelated to decades of public policy and neglect, police brutality and enforced poverty); and b) homogeneous (motivated by a single emotion rather than variegated, paradoxical and complex). Such a move allows those insulated from such violence by geography or privilege to cast judgements upon the rioters, with whom we have little shared experience or history. They've gone "too far" (how far is too far when you have nothing to lose and have been told, repeatedly, by society that you are worth nothing?). We point, sanctmoniously, at the non-violent Civil Rights movement in America, completely ignoring its concomitant riots, violence and aggression. It's easy to set arbitrary limits--murder, assault, thievery--when you are removed from place and history.
Make no mistake: the violence seen by London over the last four nights is a spike in the trace pattern of capitalism. It's the shadow cast by the violence enacted by an economic system which not only demands inequality, it tests the limits of its margins.
Let me answer Sven here. Of course its wrong to kill people, especially the innocent.(as innocent as any of us ever get) But as a rightwing libertarian and one who apparently believes the creed of inequality and law of the jungle (which is all libertarianism can ever end at, in the real world), you couldn't possibly be sincere in believing invoking absolute nonviolence, up to the point of accepting a lifetime of hardship or suicide, and the slow strangling of your own community. If a few already hardened individuals go beyond what most others would and purposely harm bystanders that cannot be held against all of them --not according to even the most modest liberal interpretation of the law. Others you can can call collateral damage, or unfortunate casualties of war, if it helps you understand. Difference between this and all the organized wars supported by rightwingers is its based on very real injustices which cannot be escaped or denied by most these protestors/rioters. Injustices which have never been addressed except by further screw tightening by those who are supposed to represent them.
You buying Beltovs' BS too Ken, or do you know something that us lifetime residents of BC never heard? Or are you becming a kneejerk Marxist too? My mother was personally affected by Munros collapse too, but always knew who was actually behind it. And how little most others cared after it was over.
Please don't compare Barrett with todays breed of neo-liberal frauds, whatever his very real flaws, not unless you want to hold every political leader up to similarly impossible high standards. Ones in fact which most supposedly progressive voters rarely hold up consistently, when it comes to other peoples need to 'compromise' with reality. The lack of solidarity with others struggles combined with unrealistic expectations about our own have been a deadly combination for the left over the last thirty years of retreat and defeat. But then none of us knew how far it would go back then.
I'm not a libertarian purist. I think that society has a moral obligation to help the indigent. Where I think I part ways with many progressives is with a broad extension of similar state benefits to the middle class. But, I don't think that latter aspect of my views is terribly relevant in this case because, as I understand the events in the UK, the people rioting are, indeed, among the poorest of UK residents.
I'll answer your predictable responses in another thread, as I get tired of the bs slung here by kneejerk combatants on both sides of most issues here and this is a late thread drift. One time at Babble some balance could usually be found -eventually- if not overall consensus, as well as debate which went beyond partisan point scoring.
And once again you should at least try to apologise for your childishly personal insults, or are those sort of words foreign to the fundamentalist left vocabulary as well?
My mother, who was eventually forced from her job because of it, and then forced to sell her home for much less than its value, always suspected but it took a few years to come out. The Labour movements leaders unfortunately are sometimes their own worst enemies, but OC the politician trying to balance interests in an actively hostile anti-labour (green etc) environment is the one who always gets the blame. Same on the right, but they at least pay them better when they retire and sometimes defend them against the oppositions most excessive charges. Ya Barrett was nothing but a sellout and therefore calling him a pig is ok. Sure.
Of course it's easier if your own home isn't being torched. But then its easy to ignore others who homes were simply taken away years ago in the Thatcher revolution, and sold to yuppies, and never had a chance to get another since. It could all end easily if their greivances are recognised and the middleclass realisae that they can't keep bailing out the rich by selling out the poor. (and undermining their own safety net in the process) The poor just don't have anymore give to give anymore -they're poorer than ever- while the rich always held all the excess. By definition. The scarcely concealed racism among the otherwise polite has to be honestly addressed too, starting with some recognition its still a widespread problem. Better education, more equality, more contact and time could do the rest.
*sigh*
I think I know that, Eric.
I am saying that the situation is probably a bit different for people who are living through that violence right now. And I am also saying that it is not a sustainable situation. Either it will go back to the way it was or something will change, but the violence can only last so long.
Sorry but that wasn't apparent to me by your statements. You just said it couldn't go on. And I get too much cross flack to know what others are really thinking otherwise. The curse of tryiong to find some common rational ground ANYWHERE politically. Especially when things are spilling over, as I have warned for years.
Anyhow the rioting won't go on forever either, even though we all know the underlyting problems won't be addressed in any real way. Not until some of the truly powerful regain some sense that they too can lose more than they gain by dividing communities, and learn to accept their own limits like other grownups. I doubt I'll live to see that great day.
ETA: I will apolgise for my unremitting need to explain everything to death too, but that too is a response to the never ending battle for control online. There are better less destructive ways to actual reform too but I doubt I'll ever see that day either.
I can analyze things to death too, and I agree completely with your last statement.
I just think with all the talk of what this means and what the rioters should and shouldn't do (as if anyone is paying attention) some people are missing what a dangerous, unpredictable and unstable situation it is. I can imagine there must be a lot of absolutely fucking terrified people over there right now.
I am far more concerned about the threat of loss of life, injury, and the damage to peoples' homes and livelihood than I am about how this furthers the revolution.
Fuck, if it's gonna come it will come soon enough, and I doubt it will depend on which of us is right or wrong.
Yeah they are, for the most part. And the racism in our old home countries is unfortunately even worse than here, from the looks of it. Anyhow, I should have been in bed 2 hours ago. You must be a very early riser or natural born nighthawk like me.
I'd be frightened too and I've never been a revolutionary in the traditional meaning, but if this social refusal by our elites carries on much further, which it will unless met more effectively, violent revolution may become necessary and eventually unavoidable. I won't shed any tears for the elites if they keep playing with this fire, and the middleclass, who never take them to account, will just have to duck the fireworks for themselves.
UK Unrest: 'Intellectual Awakening'
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/193223.html
"A member of Iran's Majlis (parliament) says the recent wave of protests sweeping over British cities is indicative of an intellectual awakening in Britain.."
Oh Fuck Iran's Parliament! As if THEY can seriously talk about 'intellectual awakenings' to anyone past the age of six. Christ, the 'radical' left has got alot of growing up to do too. No wonder the world just keeps spinning further out of EVERYONE'S control. Goodnight dreamers.
@ Erik
Unfortunatley it's not really the elite and middle class that are most affected here. And again, whatever my thoughts on the matter are now, I am not sure I'd see it the same way if it was in the middle of that mess with my windows boarded up and me afraid for my family.
But anyway, here's somethning else from someone who is there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITJcparImeQ
And people trying to protect themselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXFuf5Cjy-A
Closing for length. Let's try again in the morning, shall we?
ETA. Continue here.