Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

SLG · Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: Bella Caledonia

You may be interested in the launch of a new newspaper in Edinburgh the other day...

http://kevinwilliamson.blogspot.c...th-launch-of-bella-caledonia.html

agentmancuso · Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:08 pm Post subject:

I liked this bit:

Cado · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 14 May 2006 Posts: 283

TBH - I still haven't got a clue what Marxism is, Trotshyism for that matter.

Been trying to figure it out. The only clues Ive had to work with is that some people refered to NuLabs social re-engineering project as 'Marxism'.

In which case it simply involves screaming at everyone until they

a) don't care
b) blow up the country
c) both

in which case...whats the point? - unless that is the point.

And if that is the point - Ive never seen it mentioned anywhere in 'Das Capital'; then again it probably wouldn't sell too well.

Though as long as book writers and political party membership sellers continue to make a fortune out of...... actually, no, it does work well.

Rinty · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:40 am Post subject:

agentmancuso · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject:

Rinty · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject:

"Labour retains the authoritarianism, bureaucracy and control-freakery common to all Marxist parties/states."

you can do better than that littlejohn-esque attempt.

Labour's authoritarianism and bureaucracy can be seen in parties and states left and right. Many, such as anti-abortionists or those who believe in state sector employment, would obviously disagree with your control-based picture, but Labour's draconian attacks on civil liberties coincide with the same moves in USA where, according to you, George Bush just cannot shake of his core marxist values. We ban smoking in public places, again following a lead from states (marxist states?) in the USA.

European countries are notorious for having far more bureacracy than us, is that because of their marxist leanings? Are the control feaks in Saudi marxists?

In 1984, in my home town, when you couldnt move anywhere without police stopping you and van loads of police at every corner, police stopping people leaving the county, we all rolled our eyes and wished that thatcher wasn't such a marxist.

New Labour, like all power-driven monoliths will abandon any principle for power and control. They behave, not like a marxist party as such, more like a typical large american or european political party, left or right.

agentmancuso · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject:

Rinty · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject:

"Show me a Marxist state that has not relied on authoritarianism, bureaucracy and control-freakery. Show me a Marxist party that has not included in its programme measures to increase the power of the state, and to use the power of the state to advance its own ideological fantasies."

And that would prove that New Labour are marxist?

"I didn't say all control freaks are Marxists. I said all Marxists are control freaks. M is a subset of CF."

No, you said that Labour were marxist.

agentmancuso · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:56 pm Post subject:

Rinty · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject:

"No. It would prove that Marxists are control freaks. Like Labour. It might just be a coincidence of course. Or it might be because, despite jettisoning Marxist economics, Labour retain the moral authoritarianism common to all Marxist parties and states."

Or, it could be that they had never had marxist economics to jettison, and that, after jettisoning their state capitalism approach, they are left in the position of the vast majority of political parties, left or right, especially the large ones, they are only interested in winning and retaining power.

"They have retained the control-freakery element common to Marxists, yes. And the moral authoritarianism."

Or they have the control-freakery and moral authoritarian element common to all morally authoritarian control feaks, left or right, Saudi or American, Chinese or British.

"And the socialist assumption that it is morally acceptable for the government to use the machinery of state to artificially engineer any social situation it deems desirable. Which is Marxist."

Of course there is nothing wrong (or marxist) in theory, in using state as a tool to engineer social conditions. On a very basic level, taking tax revenues to provide transport links would be common to most countries. Whether something is morrally acceptable or not is far too subjective to introduce in this debate as an absolute. It is morally acceptable to most people if the outcome is one that most share in or agree with.

So, if a country introduces laws banning women from revealing bare skin in public, most would consider that to be morally unnacceptable but perhaps not where the law is introduced. It certainly wouldn't be considered a marxist policy on the simplistic basis of your argument that - social enginneering by state = marxism.

That actual action of interfering by state is not in itself morally unnacceptable to most people, it would be what it was used for that would be where the moral judgement comes in.

For instance, if this Labour govt introduced tighter border controls, this would be social engineering and a restriction of freedoms. I think you would find that most in the country would find this morally acceptable, and that it would be marxists that find it unacceptable.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

Cado wrote "Ive never seen it mentioned anywhere in Das Capital" - I once tried to read Das Capital. I gave up about page three. It puzzles me that so many folk have been bamboozled into thinking such a boring book "revolutionary". However, some folk in the USA were so impressed with what I said about not being impressed with Marx, they actually made a car sticker quoting me on this. Seriously. They really did. I have no idea how many of those car stickers they sold, or how many cars in the USA ever carried a sticker with my name. Probably not many. Just as well. I don't really like the idea of having "followers".

So Kevin Williamson is claiming to be a "libertarian" these days?

Could this possibly be the same Kevin Williamson who supported the suppression of internal dissent in Independence First? The same Kevin Williamson who was in favour of censorship?

Well, they do say there is more rejoicing for one sinner that repents than for those who have never strayed.

As for "redefining democracy", well, yes, in my experience, Kevin and co do give it a new meaning. In fact, some might say, an entirely opposite meaning.

"By-and-large the remnants of the old centralist left stayed away" - apart from Kev Williamson, that is.

Cado · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 14 May 2006 Posts: 283

Been having a quick delve into Marxism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Got to say at the outset it seems to have more factions than the judeans peoples front (recalling comments made when the SSP went belly up).

Had a skim through Das Capital - I was looking for some of the more fundamental economic relationships that I could use to get a 'grip' on understanding economics - couldn't be arsed reading the whole thing though, in any case - its just one mans opinion - all I needed was a few pointers and I'd happily continue working out the rest for myself.

Just feel he uses mental 'pictures' to good effect - unlike other economics books which just give you list upon list of equations and graphs.

Aventinian · Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

For all I know, "Bella Caledonia" may be a very worthwhile project which deserves support, or, at least, a well-meaning project which deserves not to be pre-judged. And I do usually try to look at things in terms of principles, rather than in terms of personalities. But from what I have heard (from usually reliable sources), this is very much Kev Williamson's project. I have been told that the others he has managed to rope in are exactly that, others he has managed to rope in.

However, as I see it, if a pacifist were to beat up a warmonger, that would be ironic. If a conservative (one who wishes to conserve) should behave in a destructive way, that would be ironic. If a liberal democrat should behave in a way that is neither liberal nor democratic, that would be ironic. When supporters of "labour" behave in a way that is anti-working class, that is ironic. And when somebody who supported censorship of internal dissent in Independence First proclaims that they are "libertarian", that is ironic. Now, of course, there should be rejoicing over a sinner who repents and turns over a new leaf. Maybe I just didn't notice the "repenting" stage where Kev is concerned. Kev Williamson says "perhaps the one-trick pony of Marxist denunciations of all heretics has run its infantile course". I don't know, Kevin, I've never been a Marxist, so you tell me. When you look in the mirror, do you see somebody for whom denunciations of all heretics has run its course? If you do, could you please refer me, by date and by place of publication, to the article in which you stated that you now repented of your past support for suppression of dissident views? It is worrying that control of a new allegedly "libertarian" publication should be so clearly in the hands of someone who has in the past shown some intolerance of dissent. It would be a bit less worrying if there was any actual evidence of a change of heart.

carol · Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject:

Kev's more likely to be daft as a brush, rather than mad, is a sound enough guy, pretty approachable and ok to get on with.

Dave re IF and Kev, firstly there's no need to draw IF into it, secondly factually you are wrong on this issue.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

Carol wrote "Dave re IF and Kev, firstly there's no need to draw IF into it, secondly factually you are wrong on this issue".

We can only go by our own experience. My experience of Kev Williamson consists entirely of his involvement with IF, nothing else. Now, you might think, why not let bygones be bygones? Well, I'm happy to do so, but first of all I do have to say that I find Kev's claim to being a "libertarian" rather ironic. Like I said, "could you please refer me, by date and by place of publication, to the article in which you stated that you now repented of your past support for suppression of dissident views? It is worrying that control of a new allegedly 'libertarian' publication should be so clearly in the hands of someone who has in the past shown some intolerance of dissent. It would be a bit less worrying if there was any actual evidence of a change of heart".

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

Carol wrote that Kev Williamson is "pretty approachable".

That is a very odd expression, if you think about it.

Postal workers, plumbers, nurses, dustmen, all perform essential work in society. But nobody describes their local postman, plumber, nurse, or refuse collector as "pretty approachable". The only people I have ever heard using the expression "pretty approachable" were public relations folk (whether paid or voluntary) and the only people I have ever heard them using that expression about were politicians and other celebrities.

The implication is that Kev Williamson is a celebrity and we should be grateful that we are allowed to approach him.

Bollocks to that.

The people promoting "Bella Caledonia" are seeking our support. Since it is them that seek our support, it is up to them to try to convince us why we should give it. It doesn't matter how "approachable" they are. The "approach" comes from THEM.

carol · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:23 am Post subject:

Once again you are manipulating things to suit your own means. Kev is a genuinely nice guy, and your accusations are way out of order. Why do you insist on dragging IF or individuals within IF through the mire? You have no evidence to back up what you're saying. Where and when did he ever support 'censorship of internal dissent in Independence First'.

Rinty · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject:

I find Kevin an inspirational figure and if the project is entirely of his making then that will do for me nine times out of ten, reason enough to buy it as far as I am concerned.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

Carol asks "Why do you insist on dragging IF or individuals within IF through the mire?"

Carol, it is just over six months since the IF meeting which decided to close down the members forum and ban all e-mail contact between members. Yet you seem to want to say "that is ancient history, and must never be discussed". In a country where people still argue over events which happened in 1560, or in 1320, etc etc etc, I think you are being completely unrealistic in expecting to totally suppress all discussion of events just a few months old. Yes, of course, we should actively co-operate wherever this is possible. But "co-operating" where possible can never mean adopting a completely un-critical attitude. Of course if somebody who supported that suppression of internal dissent should later claim to be a "libertarian", that is bound to lead to scepticism being expressed.

"You have no evidence to back up what you're saying. Where and when did he ever support 'censorship of internal dissent in Independence First'." okay, I admit I may not have kept all of the relevant e-mails etc. However, to my certain knowledge, at least fifteen members of Independence First found that censorship of internal dissent so objectionable, they resigned from IF. It is possible there may have been others I'm not aware of. But if you are now saying that Kev resigned from IF because he objected to censorship of internal dissent, that is news to me.

I do know that the treasurer of Independence First, Niall Aslen, decided not to resign from IF, but he decided also that he would, while remaining a member, condemn the suppression of internal dissent which had led fifteen others to resign. But I am not aware of any such condemnation from Kev.

Rinty wrote "I find Kevin an inspirational figure". Okay, and maybe others agree with you, but so far as him being a "libertarian" or not is concerned, I'm afraid "inspirational" or otherwise is completely beside the point. Many people found Joseph Stalin an inspirational figure. Many people found Adolf Hitler an inspirational figure. No, that doesn't mean I think Kev is as bad as either Hitler or Stalin, what it means is that being "inspirational" may be enough to secure enough support to be "successfull", but it is not enough to convince the sceptics and the dissidents.

Carol wrote "Kev is a genuinely nice guy" - lots of charismatic politicians have been considered by their admirers to be "genuinely nice guys". But this is also completely beside the point, I'm afraid.

The word about which I expressed scepticism was "libertarian". Being a libertarian does not mean being a nice guy. Some libertarians are nice guys, some are not, and some, like most of us, are a mixture of naughty and nice. There have been authoritarians who were nice guys who felt they had to, regrettably, be authoritarian, for the best of reasons. And there have been genuine libertarians who were not very nice at all. "Niceness" is beside the point.

Read what Kev Williamson wrote again. He made no claim of being "nice". He DID claim to be "libertarian". And it is THAT claim which I find rather ironic.