I've been reading you're shit. You just don't like Cameron being shown up as a cunt. You're a conservative.
Cameron went on jolly to apartheid South Africa
- Thread starter elbows
- Start date
I've been reading you're shit. You just don't like Cameron being shown up as a cunt. You're a conservative.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
"You're" better be a grammatical error.
I'm no fan of Mr Cameron and I don't support the Conservative Party. Did you not notice me criticise him in my first post? This thread's had enough of assumptions I think.
If you've got a sensible point to make, please make it.
I'm no fan of Mr Cameron and I don't support the Conservative Party. Did you not notice me criticise him in my first post? This thread's had enough of assumptions I think.
If you've got a sensible point to make, please make it.
It was.
Quite the sensivitive chap there... You are your, Danmnit, I ruffled a fuckwit. I did call you a fuckwit to be fair.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
with all due respect, this is "rousseau lite" bollocks ... nelson mandela was justified in fighting the SA gov't because he was "governed without consent"? the social contract is a convenient fiction designed to jutify state power and "legitimise" it - there never was a contract and the entire thing is a hypothesis to justify why state power is a good idea FROM SCRATCH because if we agreed to a social contract under a benevolent sovereign this is "surely"
what we'd agree to. were you ever asked "I consent to be governed"? you are missing the point, the point isn't that nelson mandela etc didn't "consent to be governed" (as if anyone does) it is that apartheid was an instutionalised society entirely based around race, everything was designed to keep one part of the population without rights, regardless of what they believed, what they thought, whether they just wanted to get on with their own business - theroetically if one of them supported the national party they would have been just as under as much institutionalised discrimination as anyone else
What "threshold" does a democratic state have to pass to not be democratic any more, and become a dictatorship - what is the point past which a state can't be cnsidered a democracy any more? i want concrete examples
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
Venezuela, Iran and the Erith & Thamesmead Labour Party.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Azrael, you are becoming a bit muddled here, as frogwoman points out.
You draw a distinction between Mandela (violence justified) and his friend Castro (violence not justified). Yet Cuba was suffering under the thumb of a brutal, repressive, corrupt dictator. The Cuban Revolution was, initially at least, extremely popular among most Cubans, and it is hard to see how anyone like Batista could have been removed without violence.
On the one hand, you say that all tyranny is as bad as any other, then you start grading tyrannies.
I still don't think you understand why people have lost their rag a bit with you on this. Let me try to explain again.
Throughout the 1980s, a 24-hour picket line was maintained outside the South African embassy in London. Why? Why was the presence of an embassy from this particular country uniquely an affront? It is because inside that building sat the South African ambassador, and I have no idea what that ambassador's name was, but I can tell you one thing about him (it was probably a him) for absolute sure – he was white. That South Africa's white-only government was acknowledged in such a way – by being given an embassy – was a stain on the UK. The presence of embassies from the Soviet Union or East Germany was not such a stain. The Soviet ambassador, for instance, could have been Russian, Ukrainian or Georgian – I could not say for sure. I can tell you that he (again, it was probably a he) will have been a member of the Communist Party (a choice he will have made) but not to which ethnic group he belonged (not a choice).
You draw a distinction between Mandela (violence justified) and his friend Castro (violence not justified). Yet Cuba was suffering under the thumb of a brutal, repressive, corrupt dictator. The Cuban Revolution was, initially at least, extremely popular among most Cubans, and it is hard to see how anyone like Batista could have been removed without violence.
On the one hand, you say that all tyranny is as bad as any other, then you start grading tyrannies.
I still don't think you understand why people have lost their rag a bit with you on this. Let me try to explain again.
Throughout the 1980s, a 24-hour picket line was maintained outside the South African embassy in London. Why? Why was the presence of an embassy from this particular country uniquely an affront? It is because inside that building sat the South African ambassador, and I have no idea what that ambassador's name was, but I can tell you one thing about him (it was probably a him) for absolute sure – he was white. That South Africa's white-only government was acknowledged in such a way – by being given an embassy – was a stain on the UK. The presence of embassies from the Soviet Union or East Germany was not such a stain. The Soviet ambassador, for instance, could have been Russian, Ukrainian or Georgian – I could not say for sure. I can tell you that he (again, it was probably a he) will have been a member of the Communist Party (a choice he will have made) but not to which ethnic group he belonged (not a choice).
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I'd like to aplogise to azrael for having a pop at him yesterday. Emotive issue and all that. Sorry.
I still rejet the idea that by saying you opposse all oppression then all oppressions are qualitatively equal leaving you unable to differentiate between them.
I still rejet the idea that by saying you opposse all oppression then all oppressions are qualitatively equal leaving you unable to differentiate between them.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Thank you for that. It's much appreciated. 
I'm not basing this on a Rousseauian social contract (anyway, ideas of consent precede him by centuries): it's a pragmatic distinction between representative democracies and tyrannies. I was last asked for my consent in 2005.
Concrete examples: anywhere that ends free elections and suspends due process. Weimar Germany, Iran after Operation Ajax, and so on.
How would you differentiate democratic states and tyrannies?
The Soviet Ambassador wasn't subject to South Africa's demented ideas of racial purity, no. But he represented a tyranny that denied its citizens their most basic rights, and tended to shoot them if they tried to emigrate. Is equally oppressing your citizens really an improvement? To me that regime is just as evil as South Africa. In a different way, perhaps, but no higher up the moral ladder.
And on a pragmatic note, allowing an embassy isn't an act of approval. We've allowed embassies for all kinds of ghastly dictators, from Pinochet to Saddam Hussein. Some of these regimes imposed racist policies -- Saddam's treatment of the Kurds is just one example. Where's the line to be drawn?
The two are connected. Mr Mandela was denied of his civil rights because of his race. Citizens of other tyrannies are denied them on other grounds. Racialism is undoubtedly as evil a doctrine as you'll find, but I don't see what makes oppression on other grounds better. The distinguishing feature appears to be that people in other tyrannies can choose, but they can't, really. All are denied basic rights, and if the choice is between accepting this and a sticky end in a torture-prison or a locked ward, choice becomes meaningless.
I'm not basing this on a Rousseauian social contract (anyway, ideas of consent precede him by centuries): it's a pragmatic distinction between representative democracies and tyrannies. I was last asked for my consent in 2005.
Concrete examples: anywhere that ends free elections and suspends due process. Weimar Germany, Iran after Operation Ajax, and so on.
How would you differentiate democratic states and tyrannies?
Violence probably was justified against Batista. You have to separate the initial act from what followed. Instead of free elections and due process, Cuba got dictatorship, the shooting of prisoners, and all the wearily familiar features of dictatorship.
The Soviet Ambassador wasn't subject to South Africa's demented ideas of racial purity, no. But he represented a tyranny that denied its citizens their most basic rights, and tended to shoot them if they tried to emigrate. Is equally oppressing your citizens really an improvement? To me that regime is just as evil as South Africa. In a different way, perhaps, but no higher up the moral ladder.
And on a pragmatic note, allowing an embassy isn't an act of approval. We've allowed embassies for all kinds of ghastly dictators, from Pinochet to Saddam Hussein. Some of these regimes imposed racist policies -- Saddam's treatment of the Kurds is just one example. Where's the line to be drawn?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
OK, I'm not going to argue with you too much because I genuinely think your heart is in the right place. But the correct thing for the UK and other countries to have done would have been to have opened up a South Africa embassy staffed by representatives of a government in exile – effectively the ANC. I believe there is a precedence for this, of sorts, in the historical recognition/non-recognition of China/Taiwan. This wasn't done, not least because the UK and other countries had lucrative business dealings with the apartheid regime, to the shame of every single person involved in those dealings.
The suppression of the Kurds by Saddam (and Turkey, don't forget) is not equivalent. An ethnic Kurd in Baghdad would not have been refused entry to any restaurant on the basis of their ethnicity, at least not legally.
I cannot possibly agree that the Soviet regime was 'just as evil' as South Africa. South Africa was inherently evil – its evil was an integral part of its makeup. The Soviet Union performed evil acts in practice, but the idea of the Soviet Union was no more evil than the idea of the UK. The Soviet Union was a very very different place in the 1930–50s from the 1970s–80s. Apartheid South Africa was, by definition, incapable of such reform.
Regarding Cuba, I am not a fan of Castro – his suppression of opposition and free speech is something that I could never support – but to equate the Cuban regime of the 1960s with other, much more bloody and brutal dictatorships is wrong. From within the regime, there was a remarkable amount of criticism – watch Gutierrez Alea's film Memories of Underdevelopment for an example. There were unjust state executions, yes – as there have been in many supposed democracies. But there was also a great deal of social reform that was progressive – ending racial segregation, huge literacy and health programmes, for instance. Remember that this was one of the last states in the Americas to end slavery and the poorest Cubans lived in terrible conditions. The regime tackled this.
I can't forgive Castro his 'if you are not with me, you are against me' attitude (the self-same words uttered to the world by George Bush after 9/11, of course), but it is simplistic to dismiss his regime as just another dictatorship because they did not immediately institute a liberal democracy, especially given the threat from the North that was constantly present. Castro, unlike his brother, was not really a communist in 1959. He was a nationalist. It can be argued that it was the hostility of the USA towards the revolution that made Fidel into a communist. At first the US considered supporting it until they discovered that the social plans were beyond anything they could tolerate in one of their client states – see Arbenz and Guatemala in 1954 for another example of this intolerance of reform. Without the consent of the US, 'free' elections would have been anything but, and another nasty US-approved strongman would have been likely.
Cuba does not submit easily to simple black and white analysis.
Edited to add:
Some of the best people I met in Cuba were among the few sincere communists left there. If I were Cuban, I certainly wouldn't be like them and I thought them often either naive or, more likely, in a state of huge denial. But they were kind, generous and hugely giving. Good people can be communists. I struggle to see, however, how a good person can be a white supremacist – their treatment of other people as sub-people disqualifies them from this categorisation.
That's my final go at making you see how apartheid South Africa was different.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Allowing the ANC set up a government in exile would have been an excellent move, in the tradition of our actions in the Second World War. Closing down the South African embassy would of course have had symbolic importance, but there's a strong case for having a representative of a government here to negotiate with, however vile they might be. Such negotiation could well help end the oppression. If the British government had been serious about opposing South Africa, they could have allowed the ANC government in exile to open up next door.
I don't defend the actions of Baroness Thatcher or the 1980s Conservative Party in any way: whether it was their obsession with the free market, or something darker at work, their policies were a disgrace to this country. At the very least anyone caught wearing a "hang Mandella" badge should have been expelled from the party.
Moral depravity needn't be identical to be equivalent. Kurds might be allowed into cafes in Baghdad, but they were also slaughtered with chemical weapons in their homelands. Both actions are wicked in their own way.
You've clearly got far more experience of Cuba than I have, so I'll defer to you on that one. One particular regime might be better than South Africa -- although it's impossible to know how good Cuba's health and education truly are without independent assessment, and even if they were wonderful, I don't see how they compensate for the tyranny -- but that isn't the same thing as saying South Africa was automatically worse than other tyrannies.
I hold the position I do simply because I'm wary of letting up on any type of despotic state, even a little bit.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
I'm comparing regimes, not the ideologies behind them. As I said a few pages back, I don't for a moment think communism is comparable to racialism. I might disagree with communism, and strongly, but to state the obvious, it's got rather more depth than the odious and unhinged view that our worth is dictated by our origin or our melanin content.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I spent four days in a Cuban hospital with dysentry. Their health care system isn't quite wonderful. I also spent time attached to a Cuban university – their education system is riddled with the state ideology.
But both systems are there and free at the point of access. I can report to you that Cuba is every bit as literate as the UK, and you can look up some of their basic health stats such as life expectancy and infant mortality – these are up with the rich world, not down with the poor.
These achievements do not excuse tyranny, but before a person can dream of freedom, they need to have food in their belly.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Of course, one of the reasons Cuba's health system is so cheap is because they pay their staff fuck all! The staff do their best and certainly give a lie to the idea that people won't work for peanuts, but the system does creak for lack of supplies.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
There are levels of freedom, too.
At a political level, there is no freedom in Cuba. You can get into trouble for expressing a dissenting opinion in public, or even in private – there are informants about.
But on a day-to-day living level, Cubans are less controlled than we are in the UK in some ways. There are fewer rules on the wall saying 'thou shalt not', and those that there are will often be ignored.
We should not overstate the case of our freedom here in the UK. There is largely freedom of speech, expression and organisation, yes, but the majority of people never exercise these freedoms anyway. Socially, we are increasingly tightly controlled.
That is not to understate the deeply damaging psychological effect of the totalitarian state, in which everyday conversation and even thought become, of necessity, trivial. Totalitarianism's worst aspect, possibly, is the way that it turns its people into collaborators in small ways, arrests their intellectual, and even moral, development, and compromises friendships.
The waters are muddy.
At a political level, there is no freedom in Cuba. You can get into trouble for expressing a dissenting opinion in public, or even in private – there are informants about.
But on a day-to-day living level, Cubans are less controlled than we are in the UK in some ways. There are fewer rules on the wall saying 'thou shalt not', and those that there are will often be ignored.
We should not overstate the case of our freedom here in the UK. There is largely freedom of speech, expression and organisation, yes, but the majority of people never exercise these freedoms anyway. Socially, we are increasingly tightly controlled.
That is not to understate the deeply damaging psychological effect of the totalitarian state, in which everyday conversation and even thought become, of necessity, trivial. Totalitarianism's worst aspect, possibly, is the way that it turns its people into collaborators in small ways, arrests their intellectual, and even moral, development, and compromises friendships.
The waters are muddy.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Perhaps, but one type of freedom tends to support another. Private conversation is, apparently, free in Iran, but an air of fear is also said to be present. As with all tyrannies, there's that lingering uncertainty over whether an unchecked state is going to come for you. This is the psychological effect you mention.
I suspect we don't realise the extent of freedom until it's gone.
I'm under no illusions about liberty in Britain. It's in peril. But we're not close to being a police state. Marks of a free society like a free press exist. The papers have been robust (surprisingly so) in criticising the police after the G20, and are rude about the government. While authoritarian laws have been passed, jury trial remains widely available, and free elections are regularly held. It could tip, especially with dangerous laws that need repeal, but it hasn't yet.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You are right – we are not close to a police state here, and that is what Cuba is, effectively. I suspect Iran will be much like Cuba in terms of private conversation – even between family members there may be some reserve. Much safer to discuss the price of food or baseball.
As a foreigner that they could be sure was not an informer, I often found myself in the role of therapist as even slight acquaintances poured out their problems to me. Practical gripes mostly, it has to be said – they were normally more bothered by the empty shops and rising prices than the lack of a vote – but to express dissatisfaction with the regime in public even over practical matters is dangerous. I saw one man lose it on the bus once. He stood up and started screaming how they were all expected to have two jobs [the official one and the black market one] and still couldn't live. He was pulled back into his seat by the people around him as they attempted to shut him up and stop him getting into trouble.
Certainly, we'd all be arrested in Cuba for what we say on here!
It's being gnawed at the edges here, though. You can be arrested for poetry now.
Arthur Miller had it right when he said that each generation must win its freedom anew.
As a foreigner that they could be sure was not an informer, I often found myself in the role of therapist as even slight acquaintances poured out their problems to me. Practical gripes mostly, it has to be said – they were normally more bothered by the empty shops and rising prices than the lack of a vote – but to express dissatisfaction with the regime in public even over practical matters is dangerous. I saw one man lose it on the bus once. He stood up and started screaming how they were all expected to have two jobs [the official one and the black market one] and still couldn't live. He was pulled back into his seat by the people around him as they attempted to shut him up and stop him getting into trouble.
Certainly, we'd all be arrested in Cuba for what we say on here!
It's being gnawed at the edges here, though. You can be arrested for poetry now.
Arthur Miller had it right when he said that each generation must win its freedom anew.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
One final thought on this before I go to bed.
I was quite overwhelmed when I came back here from Cuba by the relentless and invasive advertising that it is impossible to escape. In Cuba there are no adverts. In their place are political slogans and the faces of dead revolutionary heroes.
The advertising is in many ways analogous to the more naked Cuba-style propaganda. It reinforces the norms of our society and the system in which we live, and to a great extent it shapes our ideas, desires and expectations. It is insidious and unpleasant.
I found Cuba's propaganda billboards more honest and pleasant to live with, even when they were spouting nonsense. Their nonsense exhorted 'us' into action. Our nonsense is always about 'I'.
I was quite overwhelmed when I came back here from Cuba by the relentless and invasive advertising that it is impossible to escape. In Cuba there are no adverts. In their place are political slogans and the faces of dead revolutionary heroes.
The advertising is in many ways analogous to the more naked Cuba-style propaganda. It reinforces the norms of our society and the system in which we live, and to a great extent it shapes our ideas, desires and expectations. It is insidious and unpleasant.
I found Cuba's propaganda billboards more honest and pleasant to live with, even when they were spouting nonsense. Their nonsense exhorted 'us' into action. Our nonsense is always about 'I'.
Have you seen 'They Live', LBJ?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
"CONSUME!"
Similar threads
