david starkey: class warrior

[ed miliband]

oj9dA6E3fJw


and i will not be lectured to by a jumped-up public school girl like you

damn

[Tim Finnegan]

Is that shitstain still being allowed out in public? Dear god, I really do hate this country. Or countries. Whatever, I'm sure the shitstain could tell us.

[ed miliband]

c'mon penny is just as bad

starkey is an honest reactionary at least

[Revolution starts with U]

I tried looking around briefly, and will continue to do so but...

I would prefer is one could provide a more comprehensive version of this event because I have no idea who these people are, what they stand for, and they both sound like pricks.

[ed miliband]

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/alex-callinicos-swp-vs-laurie-penny-new-statesman-facebook-handbags.266196/

82 pages about how bad penny is - the last 10 or so pages concern this particular event i think

butchersapron's posts are probably the best

[Tim Finnegan]

c'mon penny is just as bad

starkey is an honest reactionary at least
I frankly do not understand why it's better to publicly espouse white nationalism than it is to be well-meaning-but-a-bit-daft. :confused:

[ed miliband]

I frankly do not understand why it's better to publicly espouse white nationalism than it is to be well-meaning-but-a-bit-daft. :confused:

starkey is a racist, sure, he doesn't "publicly espouse white nationalism" though. at least not in this video. the closest thing to that is him suggesting that england or britain isn't a wholly "nation of immigrants" or whatever. he didn't finish that point, it might have gone the way you suggest.

now penny had an opportunity to take starkey up on his racism, instead she attempts to have a dig at starkey which completely backfires on her. that's one problem with this, and it's covered by your description of her as "well-meaning-but-dim".

but the deeper problem is that penny, as starkey suggests, is privately educated and has been through oxbridge - little difference between her and cameron, clegg, et al. yet she has positioned herself as the "voice of a generation", a "leader" of the british left, with piss-poor journalism. and she'll go the way starkey did one day; from the "left" to reactionary contrarianism. i'll put money on that.

[Hit The North]

Starkey did come from the bottom of society. He's a right class traitor.

[human strike]

Laurie Penny once published a comrade's address in an online New Statesmen article about riots. At first she tried to pretend she couldn't remove it.

[Tim Finnegan]

starkey is a racist, sure, he doesn't "publicly espouse white nationalism" though. at least not in this video. the closest thing to that is him suggesting that england or britain isn't a wholly "nation of immigrants" or whatever. he didn't finish that point, it might have gone the way you suggest.

now penny had an opportunity to take starkey up on his racism, instead she attempts to have a dig at starkey which completely backfires on her. that's one problem with this, and it's covered by your description of her as "well-meaning-but-dim".

but the deeper problem is that penny, as starkey suggests, is privately educated and has been through oxbridge - little difference between her and cameron, clegg, et al. yet she has positioned herself as the "voice of a generation", a "leader" of the british left, with piss-poor journalism. and she'll go the way starkey did one day; from the "left" to reactionary contrarianism. i'll put money on that.
And that makes her as bad as a nationalist, racist, misogynist and anti-working class demagogue? :confused:

(edit: It occurs that I might be making a meal out of an off-hand comment, so if that's the case just go ahead and ignore me. I don't deny that there are a lot of criticisms that can be made of Penny, I just don't think that it pays to over-state it.)

[ed miliband]

And that makes her as bad as a nationalist, racist, misogynist and anti-working class demagogue? :confused:

hahaha, how many times did you edit that?

i didn't say she was worse, did i? i do ultimately think that though, for the record.

as i've said, starkey doesn't make any attempt to hide the fact he is a reactionary, he revels in it. penny is out to make a pretty penny (no pun intended) off the back of her "radical" schtick. starkey is a senile great uncle ranting in the corner at a family party - people will listen but he isn't taken particularly seriously by any means. penny is peddling her shit in major publications on both sides of the atlantic. and yeah, starkey is a class traitor who worked his way up from nothing to become a lackey for the ruling classes, but penny was born into privilege, and she even denies the importance of it.

e: i mean really, in the final analysis both starkey and penny are characters/acts.
e2: and as a point of comparison, i'd consider someone like owen jones "well meaning but dim"; i don't think that can apply to penny. jones has shit politics but ultimately he's on our side. i don't believe penny is.

[Tim Finnegan]

(Yeah, I have a bad habit of over-editing things.)

Lots of people peddle the same sort of politics that Penny does, the only thing that's exceptional about her is that she's developed a public presence as something of a figurehead, and as far as I can tell that's been imposed upon her as anything she's actively cultivated. (I mean, she's around twenty-five, twenty-six? Do we really believe that somebody that young is substantially responsible for their own prominence?)

If there's anything about Penny that should make us sour, it's that she's what passes for a radical public intellectual in 2012, and that's hardly something we can blame on someone younger than Super Mario Bros. Starkey, bloviating great-uncle as he may be, is wholly responsible for his own position, and so fully culpable for his inability to do anything more with it than spout bargain-basement Powellisms.

[Hit The North]

e2: and as a point of comparison, i'd consider someone like owen jones "well meaning but dim"; i don't think that can apply to penny. jones has shit politics but ultimately he's on our side. i don't believe penny is.

Dunno, you might be a genius or something and are able to speak from a perspective I can only aspire to, but I think calling Owen Jones "dim" is a bit inappropriate. Whenever I see him on the media he beats the shit out of any professional politicians or pundits that they set him up against. He always appears to be the only one on the panel who has come armed with facts.

[ed miliband]

Dunno, you might be a genius or something and are able to apply a perspective I can only aspire to, but I think calling Owen Jones "dim" is a bit inappropriate. Whenever I see him on the media he beats the shit out of any professional politicians or pundits that they set him up against. He always appears to be the only one on the panel who has come armed with facts.

obviously this was just a bad day for him:

tSC3RMstJl8

[Hit The North]

Lots of people peddle the same sort of politics that Penny does, the only thing that's exceptional about her is that she's developed a public presence as something of a figurehead, and as far as I can tell that's been imposed upon her as anything she's actively cultivated. (I mean, she's around twenty-five, twenty-six? Do we really believe that somebody that young is substantially responsible for their own prominence?)

If there's anything about Penny that should make us sour, it's that she's what passes for a radical public intellectual in 2012, and that's hardly something we can blame on someone younger than Super Mario Bros. Starkey, bloviating great-uncle as he may be, is wholly responsible for his own position, and so fully culpable for his inability to do anything more with it than spout bargain-basement Powellisms.

I think both are self-promoting egotists who have the added advantage of being groomed by the media for selection rotation. Starkey, most of all, manages to appear on Question Time about five times a year. Pretty good going for an academic who's cloistered knowledge stops around the same time as the Tudors.

Btw, isn't "bloviating" a great word! What's it mean?

[ed miliband]

(Yeah, I have a bad habit of over-editing things.)

Lots of people peddle the same sort of politics that Penny does, the only thing that's exceptional about her is that she's developed a public presence as something of a figurehead, and as far as I can tell that's been imposed upon her as anything she's actively cultivated. (I mean, she's around twenty-five, twenty-six? Do we really believe that somebody that young is substantially responsible for their own prominence?)

If there's anything about Penny that should make us sour, it's that she's what passes for a radical public intellectual in 2012, and that's hardly something we can blame on someone younger than Super Mario Bros. Starkey, bloviating great-uncle as he may be, is wholly responsible for his own position, and so fully culpable for his inability to do anything more with it than spout bargain-basement Powellisms.


isn't that the point though? the fact she went to private school, then wadham college, oxford, and has wealthy parents with connections, without any of that she wouldn't have the prominence that she does, and yet she seems to deny the importance of these factors in her success.

[Hit The North]

obviously this was just a bad day for him:

tSC3RMstJl8

Yikes! Well that shows what I know. I did hint that I wasn't very bright, though :lol:

Of course, what he should have said is that the entire front bench should be dragged out of their millionaire lairs and publicly executed for their crimes against the working class.

[Tim Finnegan]

isn't that the point though? the fact she went to private school, then wadham college, oxford, and has wealthy parents with connections, without any of that she wouldn't have the prominence that she does, and yet she seems to deny the importance of these factors in her success.
I don't know, I haven't really read enough of her stuff to know how she presents her story in any detail. I just think it's a bit odd to find her even more objectionable than Starkey, when she's basically a novice in way over her depth who at her worst really just represents the pretensions of middle class/university leftism, and he's just a prick.

Like I said, maybe I'm making too much of it, it's not actually like we've started drawing up league tables of people we don't like, and I doubt either of them would appear very high anyway.


I think both are self-promoting egotists who have the added advantage of being groomed by the media for selection rotation. Starkey, most of all, manages to appear on Question Time about five times a year. Pretty good going for an academic who's cloistered knowledge stops around the same time as the Tudors.
I don't doubt that either of them fall under the category of "self-promoting egoists", that pretty much comes with the territory, but surely there's a difference between a young woman who blundered sideways into her public presence because it suited the media to have a vaguely-radical-but-basically-safe talking head, and a old man who has consciously carved a place for himself as a bullying contrarian?

I dunno, maybe I'm being over-sympathetic to Penny because she's around my age, and if I was in her position I'd probably have a nervous breakdown.


Btw, isn't "bloviating" a great word! What's it mean?Talking at length in a pompous manner without actually saying anything substantial.

[Book O'Dead]

Apparently the old guy believes in some form of British nationalism based on some anthropological notion or other.

His ad hominem attack on the girl was provoked by her own ad hominems. He is wrong because it makes him look aggressive toward women and because a smarter guy would have responded with more serenity and humor. Instead, he launched this hysterical, senile-sounding tirade against a young woman in front of a dumbfounded audience and ended up saying "I come from the bottom!" I'll say!

[Book O'Dead]

Talking at length in a pompous manner without actually saying anything substantial.

As in Rush Limbaugh and Co.

[human strike]

Owen Jones is a Labour Party member.

[ed miliband]

Owen Jones is a Labour Party member.

yep - as i said, shit politics, a bit dim, but well-meaning. last year re: nato and libya, laurie took to twitter to cheer on nato whilst jones wrote this fairly good piece:

http://owenjones.org/2011/03/20/the-case-against-bombing-libya/

there's a difference between the two

[brigadista]

who is she? never heard of her

[Hit The North]

She's a journalist who expects to get paid for talking leftish.

[Vanguard1917]

Exposing liberal hypocrisy and pretense: good for him, sorry to say.

[Book O'Dead]

Exposing liberal hypocrisy and pretense: good for him, sorry to say.

I don't know how you can applaud that guy after he went off on that young woman.

In my book any guy who does that, even when provoked, is a creep.

You never see real men of conviction and sound principle act like that, especially, toward an obviously weaker opponent.

Noam Chomsky, who's been at the center of great battles in Academia and who more than once been confronted by people who've insulted him, has never, to my knowledge responded in kind.

The fat old man in the video looks like a jerk. Plain and simple.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm not really sure what he's supposed to have "exposed". That Penny didn't have her excuses straight for the Tom Paine Whateverfest? That's not really hypocrisy, that's just being bad at public discussion. Kind of like how bullying your opponents into silence is being bad at public discussion, only not quite as obnoxious.

She has a point, though, these debates often do come town to a contest of demagoguery, so what we've mostly learned from this is that the wealthy ageing male Powellite with a CBE is a better demagogue than a female novice journalist who by all rights shouldn't even have been there. Who could have guessed.

Edit: And for what it's worth, it turns out (http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2012/06/today-we-statement-from-thomas-paine.html) that was either mistaken or lying about the Tom Paine thing.

[ed miliband]

I'm not really sure what he's supposed to have "exposed". That Penny didn't have her excuses straight for the Tom Paine Whateverfest? That's not really hypocrisy, that's just being bad at public discussion. Kind of like how bullying your opponents into silence is being bad at public discussion, only not quite as obnoxious.

it's hypocritical only because penny's brand of leftism is essentially just moralism, so starkey's accusation that she demanded an exorbitant fee from an "impoverished society" seems quite bad.


She has a point, though, these debates often do come town to a contest of demagoguery, so what we've mostly learned from this is that the wealthy ageing male Powellite with a CBE is a better demagogue than a female novice journalist who by all rights shouldn't even have been there. Who could have guessed.

Edit: And for what it's worth, it turns out (http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2012/06/today-we-statement-from-thomas-paine.html) that was either mistaken or lying about the Tom Paine thing.i know plenty of girls my age (19/20) who can tear any fucker in half in a debate. i don't think penny's age or gender is that important here, and in her defence i don't think she'd use either as an excuse. she wouldn't be taking starkey on from the start if she didn't think she was capable of handling herself against him, but when he pulls the thomas paine accusation out the bag she falls flat on her face because she doesn't know how to respond. if her suggestion that starkey fiddles his taxes was true she would have won that round with ease.

also, i remember seeing penny debate starkey on a tv show earlier this year. i don't buy the "violence inherent in the discussion" shit, that's just her trying to get out of explaining the tom paine thing. as i say above, it's clear from the first half of the video she enjoys winding up starkey, if she was genuinely so afraid of how starkey might react to her that she maneuvered herself out of a public debate i imagine her conduct would be somewhat different.

[Vanguard1917]

i know plenty of girls my age (19/20) who can tear any fucker in half in a debate.

Yes, exactly. Her gender and age is irrelevant. It would be like defending Starkey on the grounds that he's a homosexual pushing 70.

She tried to take the moral highground by bringing up the question of Starkey's personal propriety (a classic, completely apolitical liberal tactic), and it thoroughly backfired. Good.

[bricolage]

in a way I'm not sure her asking for a fee is really that bad a thing, david starkey can definitely afford to do things for free and has had a long career making money, laurie penny is certainly well off but I think in principle the idea of a 'less successful' jouranlist (and believe me my loathing for journalists knows no bounds) asking for a fee for what is essentially work isn't really that bad. this is especially seeing as a lot of 'public' bodies as well as anything that can wrap itself in the 'public good' can guilt trip a lot of people in working for them for free based on this rhetoric, and this ranges from charities to museums to societies that put in debates. it seems the whole thomas paine thing isn't true but I think there is an argument to be made about it that hasn't really been addressed. but like I said the whole thing would be easier to argue if laurie penny wasn't well off and privileged anyway (and if she didn't have terrible politics).

she is right, starkey is a racist and a bigot but if you are going to bring something up, especially against someone like him who is obviously gonna give it back you have to be prepared to fight your corner. the thing about him picking on her isn't really there seeing as (in best playground speak) she started it. personally I'd have no interest in being on a panel with david starkey but then I don't make my money from peddling ideas, if you are in that business you end up in situations like this. that's my two cents anyway.

[bricolage]

I'd also add my 'getting paid' criteria wouldn't really apply to something you actually believed in. I mean if a tiny communist group is putting on a meeting and you're a communist you're a bit of a dick asking them for money but then if it's the thomas paine society (yawn) putting on a wanky debate about the monarchy (yawn yawn) then who really gives a shit?

[Vanguard1917]

As the sun went down over the Whitehall kettle and the icy winter wind began to bite, an extraordinary thing happened somewhere behind the police lines. I was huddled with a group of school kids and stiff, bewildered protesters around a dying fire made from exercise books and ripped-up bits of placard. We had hours yet before the police would let us free and nothing left to burn and, as we watched the embers fade away with mounting panic, a young man approached and asked if any of us would like to buy a copy of the Socialist Worker.

We rounded on him in desperation. None of us had any money but we were all freezing and we needed paper -- not to read but to burn. We begged him to give us even one paper and join us at the fire. A slew of emotions chased across the SWP seller's face as he considered this dilemma. Finally, he agreed to give us two copies, if, and only if, any of us could sing at least two verses of the Internationale. So we did -- me, some Neets and schoolkids from the slums of London -- our voices shaking a little from the chill. He handed over the papers with a smile and shuffled into the circle to warm up.

Ultimately, I'm not interested in whether you're a Leninist or a liberal or a Blairite or a Brownite or an anarchist or a concerned member of the public with no time for ideological flim-flammery. I'm interested in whether or not you're going to join me at the fire. I want to know if you're up for a fight. I want to know if you are prepared to put your body on the line to battle social oppression and fight the machinations of a dissembling government working to protect profit at the expense of the people. Because this is the future, not some cultish Petrograd-enactment society where we all dress up as revolutionaries and shout at each other for hours and then go home before anyone gets hurt. This is the future, it's happening now, and innocent people have already been hurt. The question is, are you prepared to stand with the tens of thousands on the street and stop injustice in its tracks?


I remember reading this piece a while back, with two palms on face and a single pupil peering uneasily out of a slight gap between fore and middle finger. (I'm no supporter of the SWP, but the anguishing wishy-washy-liberal logic used here is priceless.)

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/12/deregulating-resistance

[Deicide]

a young man approached and asked if any of us would like to buy a copy of the Socialist Worker.

haha:laugh:

[ed miliband]

A slew of emotions chased across the SWP seller's face as he considered this dilemma. Finally, he agreed to give us two copies, if, and only if, any of us could sing at least two verses of the Internationale. So we did -- me, some Neets and schoolkids from the slums of London -- our voices shaking a little from the chill.

this almost certainly didn't happen. great imagination, our penny.

[Vanguard1917]

haha:laugh:

Give me a copy of the SW over that gibberish anyday. At least i might find some political content in the former.

[Vanguard1917]

this almost certainly didn't happen. great imagination, our penny.

Never let a fabrication about "extremists" get in the way of a nice little piece for liberal-left consumption. Equally so when debating cranky old Tories. Two sides of the same Penny (oh dear, look at me go!).

[ed miliband]

in a way I'm not sure her asking for a fee is really that bad a thing, david starkey can definitely afford to do things for free and has had a long career making money, laurie penny is certainly well off but I think in principle the idea of a 'less successful' jouranlist (and believe me my loathing for journalists knows no bounds) asking for a fee for what is essentially work isn't really that bad. this is especially seeing as a lot of 'public' bodies as well as anything that can wrap itself in the 'public good' can guilt trip a lot of people in working for them for free based on this rhetoric, and this ranges from charities to museums to societies that put in debates. it seems the whole thomas paine thing isn't true but I think there is an argument to be made about it that hasn't really been addressed. but like I said the whole thing would be easier to argue if laurie penny wasn't well off and privileged anyway (and if she didn't have terrible politics).

oh, i don't have a problem with anyone asking for a fee. i'd do the same. but as i say, penny peddles a highly moralistic brand of leftism (the talk of "left-wing virtues" that starkey makes reference to), so it would seem hypocritical if the accusations starkey makes were true.


I'd also add my 'getting paid' criteria wouldn't really apply to something you actually believed in. I mean if a tiny communist group is putting on a meeting and you're a communist you're a bit of a dick asking them for money but then if it's the thomas paine society (yawn) putting on a wanky debate about the monarchy (yawn yawn) then who really gives a shit?

yep, but then i imagine, since she was meant to be arguing for a republic, that this is something that penny actually believes in, so i don't think this really applies.

[Tim Finnegan]

i know plenty of girls my age (19/20) who can tear any fucker in half in a debate. i don't think penny's age or gender is that important here, and in her defence i don't think she'd use either as an excuse. she wouldn't be taking starkey on from the start if she didn't think she was capable of handling herself against him, but when he pulls the thomas paine accusation out the bag she falls flat on her face because she doesn't know how to respond. if her suggestion that starkey fiddles his taxes was true she would have won that round with ease.
I didn't mean to suggest that her age and gender were the direct reasons that she couldn't handle herself in front of Starkey; as you say, the direct cause of that was simply her ineptness. I'm just just saying that in a contest of demagogues, it's no surprise that the odds were in Starkey's favour.


also, i remember seeing penny debate starkey on a tv show earlier this year. i don't buy the "violence inherent in the discussion" shit, that's just her trying to get out of explaining the tom paine thing. as i say above, it's clear from the first half of the video she enjoys winding up starkey, if she was genuinely so afraid of how starkey might react to her that she maneuvered herself out of a public debate i imagine her conduct would be somewhat different.Can't argue with that.


Yes, exactly. Her gender and age is irrelevant. It would be like defending Starkey on the grounds that he's a homosexual pushing 70.
Why, does Western society have a history of systematically disempowering rich old white men?


oh, i don't have a problem with anyone asking for a fee. i'd do the same. but as i say, penny peddles a highly moralistic brand of leftism (the talk of "left-wing virtues" that starkey makes reference to), so it would seem hypocritical if the accusations starkey makes were true.
But, as has been noted, they weren't. So Starkey doesn't come any better than Penny does, he's just more confident about his bullshit.

[bricolage]

yep, but then i imagine, since she was meant to be arguing for a republic, that this is something that penny actually believes in, so i don't think this really applies.
urgh, republic.

[bricolage]

Give me a copy of the SW over that gibberish anyday. At least i might find some political content in the former.
I dunno, I reckon the best thing laurie penny ever did was call the swp cockroaches, that she copped out with the fire story was pretty weak.

[Deicide]

According to wikipedia, Starkey's parents were cotton-weavers and cleaners, interesting..

[Hit The North]

I dunno, I reckon the best thing laurie penny ever did was call the swp cockroaches, that she copped out with the fire story was pretty weak.

To have a sterling product of the English private school system such as Penny call us cockroaches was a compliment, comrade.

What next: congratulating Cameron on calling the swp "Trotskyist filth"?

[Vanguard1917]

Why, does Western society have a history of systematically disempowering rich old white men?

I meant that a person should not be given special treatment in a debate because of their being female. That's called being patronising.

And yes, gay men have been an oppressed group in Western society, though, of course, that is not particularly relevant to this thread.

[bricolage]

To have a sterling product of the English private school system such as Penny call us cockroaches was a compliment, comrade.
ummm, like callinicos right?
most left 'leaders' are just better at hiding their past than penny.

[Hit The North]

ummm, like callinicos right?
most left 'leaders' are just better at hiding their past than penny.

That might be true. But the only relevant difference between Calinicos and Penny is that the former is a Marxist revolutionary and the latter is a liberal reformist.

[Tim Finnegan]

To have a sterling product of the English private school system such as Penny call us cockroaches was a compliment, comrade.

What next: congratulating Cameron on calling the swp "Trotskyist filth"?
Broken clocks and so forth.


I meant that a person should not be given special treatment in a debate because of their being female. That's called being patronising.
Well, as I said to EM, that's honestly not what I meant by it. I'm just saying that, of the pair, it's no surprise that Starkey is the more able demagogue.

[bricolage]

That might be true. But the only relevant difference between Calinicos and Penny is that the former is a Marxist revolutionary and the latter is a liberal reformist.
much as I disagree with this, a more salient point is that it is therefore hypocritical for the swp to criticse laurie penny for her background without turning the same criticism on its leadership.

[Hit The North]

much as I disagree with this, a more salient point is that it is therefore hypocritical for the swp to criticse laurie penny for her background without turning the same criticism on its leadership.

As far as I know the SWP hasn't done this. But, regardless, if you want to line up with a liberal against fellow Marxists, that's your lookout.

[Tim Finnegan]

If Penny said the sky was blue and Calinicos green, would it be right to take the side of the "fellow Marxist" over the liberal?

[Hit The North]

If Penny said the sky was blue and Calinicos green, would it be right to take the side of the "fellow Marxist" over the liberal?

I think this question belongs in the philosophy forum.

[Manic Impressive]

I'm going to defend Laurie Penny a little bit. I think some of her articles are ok. The ones around the student protests while largely fictitious and nauseatingly hyperbolic were closer to reality than most of the right wing trash and at the time felt like they were the only articles written in support of the protests. It was nice to see something positive for a change while every other paper was screaming "they tried to kill policemen with a fire extinguisher!!!111".

[Hit The North]

I'm going to defend Laurie Penny a little bit. I think some of her articles are ok. The ones around the student protests while largely fictitious and nauseatingly hyperbolic were closer to reality than most of the right wing trash and at the time felt like they were the only articles written in support of the protests. It was nice to see something positive for a change while every other paper was screaming "they tried to kill policemen with a fire extinguisher!!!111".

Needless to say, those "cockroaches" at Socialist Worker also wrote some very supportive articles around the student protest.

[human strike]

Maybe I didn't make this clear enough earlier, but she spoke to a comrade, in confidence, who witnessed a riot but published their name and address in her article regardless of that person's wishes. I believe she didn't ask them if they wanted this published, but the source assumed their info would be anonymous given its very nature and Penny's reputation as being on-side. When asked to remove this, she stalled and tried to pretend she couldn't have it removed. Eventually the article was edited, but is this really forgivable? She potentially endangered this individual and caused them copious amounts of unnecessary stress. That's just a typical bastard journalist thing to do.

[bricolage]

As far as I know the SWP hasn't done this.
I don't actually know what the SWP has said about her, I was mainly referring to your comments about her private school background so I should have phrased it differently. anyway I think the SWP does go into personal background quite a bit, ie. eton stuff about the government, which is largely the same argument.


But, regardless, if you want to line up with a liberal against fellow Marxists, that's your lookout.
I don't regard either as a fellow anything so I'm not really trying to line up with anything. I think I've made my opinions about laurie penny pretty clear, that doesn't mean I have to then take the side of callinicos and the rest.

[Tim Finnegan]

Needless to say, those "cockroaches" at Socialist Worker also wrote some very supportive articles around the student protest.
The SWP leadership have never seen a bandwagon they didn't like.

[Hit The North]

The SWP leadership have never seen a bandwagon they didn't like.

You're absolutely right. The SWP should refrain from supporting, building and participating in any movement at all. Fucking cockroaches. I mean, what's the point of a political party that shows solidarity with other groups. They should take your lead and just carp from the sidelines, right?

[Hit The North]

I don't actually know what the SWP has said about her, I was mainly referring to your comments about her private school backgroud and so I should have phrased it differently. anyway I think the SWP does go into personal background quite a bit, ie. eton stuff about the government, which is largely the same argument.



She started it, she called me a cockroach. But you are right we should never bring up anybody's class background even if they are sellout liberal journalists or Tory ministers. It is well out of order for the SWP to point out that a self-recruiting elite are running the country and using their power to fuck over the rest of us. I mean, it's not like social class is important, right?

I tell you, you fucking jokers need to get your act together and figure out who's side you are on.

[Book O'Dead]

You're absolutely right. The SWP should refrain from supporting, building and participating in any movement at all. Fucking cockroaches. I mean, what's the point of a political party that shows solidarity with other groups. They should take your lead and just carp from the sidelines, right?

I better not catch you somewhere down the road lamenting how fractious the left has become.

PS

Sorry after re-reading I see that your correspondent is the one that deserves my reproach.

[Hit The North]

I better not catch you somewhere down the road lamenting how fractious the left has become.

Meaning what, exactly?

[Book O'Dead]

The SWP leadership have never seen a bandwagon they didn't like.

Prole art is right. Your comment is gratuitous, to say the least.

Can't we just get along...?

[Book O'Dead]

Meaning what, exactly?
Re read my post. I edited to include an apology and a retraction.
sorry.

[Tim Finnegan]

You're absolutely right. The SWP should refrain from supporting, building and participating in any movement at all. Fucking cockroaches. I mean, what's the point of a political party that shows solidarity with other groups. They should take your lead and just carp from the sidelines, right?
I am being entirely serious when I say: yes, that would be a lot better.

[Hit The North]

I am being entirely serious when I say: yes, that would be a lot better.

So how do you think socialist organizations should orientate towards the struggle then? Should they not help to build resistance to attacks or, for instance, not only call for, but enact, solidarity actions with other workers in struggle? Maybe you think we should be like the labour party and never materially support a strike? Or maybe you think there should be no organisation at all?

Some clarity on your position would be welcome.

[Tim Finnegan]

So how do you think socialist organizations should orientate towards the struggle then? Should they not help to build resistance to attacks or, for instance, not only call for, but enact, solidarity actions with other workers in struggle? Maybe you think we should be like the labour party and never materially support a strike? Or maybe you think there should be no organisation at all?

Some clarity on your position would be welcome.
I do not believe that the performative, ritualised politics of the contemporary left contribute in any meaningful sense to class struggle. I do not believe that the SWP acts in good faith, or that it is as an organisation concerned with class struggle. I do not believe that the SWP is a meaningfully working class organisation, however populist a pose it may strike. I do not believe that it is functionally capable of breaking with the Official Left, in the form of the unions or the Labour Party. I think that it has a bad habit of chewing up sincere and enthusiastic young people and leaving them dispirited husks. I think that its few useful functions could be more effectively fulfilled without the ideological and organisational baggage.

You can take your pick.

[Book O'Dead]

I do not believe that the performative, ritualised politics of the contemporary left contribute in any meaningful sense to class struggle. I do not believe that the SWP acts in good faith, or that it is as an organisation concerned with class struggle. I do not believe that the SWP is a meaningfully working class organisation, however populist a pose it may strike. I do not believe that it is functionally capable of breaking with the Official Left, in the form of the unions or the Labour Party. I think that it has a bad habit of chewing up sincere and enthusiastic young people and leaving them dispirited husks. I think that its few useful functions could be more effectively fulfilled without the ideological and organisational baggage.

You can take your pick.

Soooo...What is it you do believe in? Or did I miss something?

"To address the working man without a strictly scientific idea and a positive doctrine amounts to playing an empty and dishonest preaching game in which it is assumed, on the one hand, an inspired prophet and on the other nothing but asses listening to him with gaping mouths." --"Kick-Ass" Karl Marx (famous 19th Century wrestler).

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

His ad hominem attack on the girl was provoked by her own ad hominems. He is wrong because it makes him look aggressive toward women and because a smarter guy would have responded with more serenity and humor.

This is absolutely ridiculous, so, men have to speak to women in a serene and humorous tenor or they're aggressive? Are we going to melt or wither due to an elevated tone? Wtf?


Instead, he launched this hysterical, senile-sounding tirade against a young woman in front of a dumbfounded audience and ended up saying "I come from the bottom!" I'll say!

Ageism, so, because he's old, he must therefore be senile? I mean, come on, she's an adult and a person, not some child or little tiny rose, she can take it. If not, boohoo.

[Tim Finnegan]

Soooo...What is it you do believe in? Or did I miss something?
Does it really matter what I believe in?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wow, she comes across as a massive tit there.

Disappointing.

[Book O'Dead]

Does it really matter what I believe in?

Apparently it does. In a previous post you listed what you didn't believe in. Stands to reason that I would ask, right?

[Book O'Dead]

This is absolutely ridiculous, so, men have to speak to women in a serene and humorous tenor or they're aggressive? Are we going to melt or wither due to an elevated tone? Wtf?

What have you got against being civil? It would have been wiser for that reactionary old fart to have behaved civilly even in the face of an unprovoked attack by this young woman.


Ageism, so, because he's old, he must therefore be senile? I mean, come on, she's an adult and a person, not some child or little tiny rose, she can take it. If not, boohoo.

From what you write it seems your experience in public debate and forums is somewhat limited.

The woman in question attacked the whole panel in attendance and the other people on it did not pounce on her like this old reactionary fool did. He spilled his cookies much like a teenager would and thus, in my mind, showed himself to be a bigger fool than the novice he beat up.

No doubt she had it coming, but the old reactionary fart was the least qualified there to 'give it to her'.

[ed miliband]

I'm going to defend Laurie Penny a little bit. I think some of her articles are ok. The ones around the student protests while largely fictitious and nauseatingly hyperbolic were closer to reality than most of the right wing trash and at the time felt like they were the only articles written in support of the protests. It was nice to see something positive for a change while every other paper was screaming "they tried to kill policemen with a fire extinguisher!!!111".

i'd rather be attacked by a conservative than embraced by a liberal, tbh. it's not even like penny's articles on the student riots changed the public discourse - who read those early pieces? liberal professionals in hampstead and islington and westminster-bubble types (surely the only people who read the new statesmen irl?), and assorted leftists. the only real effect of those pieces was the propel penny into the limelight.

concerning her and the swp - wasn't she flirting with counterfire when she wrote the "cockroach" piece? she even edited a book with clare 'it's my protest!' solomon. and she's always more than happy to take the s-dub's platform at marxism (although that begs the question, why is she even invited?)

[Ocean Seal]

Starkey isn't that the "whites have become black" guy? I think I'm going to skip whatever wonderful argumentation he has in this video.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

i'd rather be attacked by a conservative than embraced by a liberal, tbh. it's not even like penny's articles on the student riots changed the public discourse - who read those early pieces? liberal professionals in hampstead and islington and westminster-bubble types (surely the only people who read the new statesmen irl?), and assorted leftists. the only real effect of those pieces was the propel penny into the limelight.

concerning her and the swp - wasn't she flirting with counterfire when she wrote the "cockroach" piece? she even edited a book with clare 'it's my protest!' solomon. and she's always more than happy to take the s-dub's platform at marxism (although that begs the question, why is she even invited?)

I got diverted to Hampstead tube station on my way home from York last weekend. Was a hot day and I had like 3 bags with me. Was a carnival and attracted the great and good of Hampstead. Never seen such a gathering of Range Rovers, 20 somethings in hipster clothing and raybans, stalls selling everything made out of soy fairtrade beans and so on. Took like 30 mins to get up the hill too. Wanted to end myself right there.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's also a shame that it was David Starkey who got to deliver this withering attack. What he said was actually quite damaging, but I think we are re-inforcing this damage with all the Laurie Penny hate.

I mean yeah sure, she's the sort of liberal we love to hate, but it seems that we love this insular kind of hatred because we are incompetent when it comes to attacking the serious politicians. You know, not the liberal hippys shouting 'peace man' from the sidelines, but the mainstream politicians carrying out barbaric assault after barbaric assault on the living standards of working class people in the name of austerity or whatever shit is their flavour of the week.

Seriously, I think it's a sign of a failing movement that we take so much glee in ripping apart well meaning idiots, when we should really be focusing our serious (and satirical!) attention on idiots like Call Me Dave, Boy George, Ed miliwank and the rest of them.

[Hit The North]

"Ed Miliwank"! And they say satire is dead.

[ed miliband]

I got diverted to Hampstead tube station on my way home from York last weekend. Was a hot day and I had like 3 bags with me. Was a carnival and attracted the great and good of Hampstead. Never seen such a gathering of Range Rovers, 20 somethings in hipster clothing and raybans, stalls selling everything made out of soy fairtrade beans and so on. Took like 30 mins to get up the hill too. Wanted to end myself right there.

haha! i was also in hampstead last week, my friend lives/works there (though she denies the former, it's kilburn apparently...). i've heard some great stories about its fine denizens. i'll ask her about this carnival...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To be fair, Hampstead itself is a lovely area in terms of its natural aesthetics. It's just that this caused/is because of high living costs there, and for whatever reason the oligarchy and 'traditional' millionaires settled in other areas, the more 'artsy' sections of the bourgeoisie love Hampstead.

It's just so hip. All these people in their raybans, walking in their tims, and there was me, 4 hour train and tube journey later, heaving my sweaty frame, suitcase and assorted other bags up Hampstead Hill in the middle of the day with the sun out, with no money for a bus having to be bailed out for a lift. Literally wanted to cry.

[ed miliband]

To be fair, Hampstead itself is a lovely area in terms of its natural aesthetics. It's just that this caused/is because of high living costs there, and for whatever reason the oligarchy and 'traditional' millionaires settled in other areas, the more 'artsy' sections of the bourgeoisie love Hampstead.

It's just so hip. All these people in their raybans, walking in their tims, and there was me, 4 hour train and tube journey later, heaving my sweaty frame, suitcase and assorted other bags up Hampstead Hill in the middle of the day with the sun out, with no money for a bus having to be bailed out for a lift. Literally wanted to cry.

yup, don't get me wrong, if i was loaded i'd live there in a shot.

i was reading albert meltzer's 'i couldn't paint golden angels' and he writes about how it was really cheap to live in hampstead in the early-mid 20th century, so lots of socialists/anarchists/etc moved into the area. and of course marx moved there long before that. it's weird because the area does have a very radical history, perhaps more so than any other area in london bar the east end, and yet it's now the most expensive place to live in the country...

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What have you got against being civil? It would have been wiser for that reactionary old fart to have behaved civilly even in the face of an unprovoked attack by this young woman.

:rolleyes:

Come on mate. Of course one should be civil however this is life, no one remains completely civil, in every debate, always. If she couldn't take it then she should have kept her mouth shut.


From what you write it seems your experience in public debate and forums is somewhat limited.


LMFAO, wow, alright, again, I'm going to just have to laugh and roll my eyes at this one.


The woman in question attacked the whole panel in attendance and the other people on it did not pounce on her like this old reactionary fool did. He spilled his cookies much like a teenager would and thus, in my mind, showed himself to be a bigger fool than the novice he beat up.

Not really, you're over-exaggerating what happened. Omg, so he spoke in her general direction in a slightly elevated (yet still, somewhat civil albeit impassioned) tone. Perhaps she should be rushed to hospital because, as we all know, if a woman is spoken to at that decibel volume, she will go into catatonic shock.


No doubt she had it coming, but the old reactionary fart was the least qualified there to 'give it to her'.

Can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[Tim Finnegan]

(See, I really have no idea what a "Hampstead" is, or why it's significant. Could somebody rephrase all this in Glaswegian terms so I have some idea what's being said? http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

(See, I really have no idea what a "Hampstead" is, or why it's significant. Could somebody rephrase all this in Glaswegian terms so I have some idea what's being said? http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif)

It's one of the flashest suburban areas in North West London, notorious for having a lot of wealthy liberal types living there. You know, the type who think they are 'left-wing' because they are all for liberal social policy, once took part in a sit-in at university and vote Green. All the while shoving their Macbooks and Starbucks take-away coffee in your face, while they get on with their position as some higher-up lackey in some city firm.