Comments on: 18 Doughty Street

By: justforfun

justforfun — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:14:07 +0000

Sonia – I did read your reply. I just have to think of something to say , but the debate on the nation state is interesting. Some say the EU is a the next rise in the never ending rollercoaster of history, as this is the development on from the nation state.

I fear it will not be a slow work day today.

Justforfun

By: sonia

sonia — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:37:16 +0000

oh yeah and before i forget the other main problem with national governments as they exist – the monopoly on violence. why should this be the case? you don’t see local government doing the same – no standing army no LB Lambeth and Southwark going to war with each other.

By: ravi

ravi — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:07:43 +0000

hi,lk,l.

By: sonia

sonia — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:00:47 +0000

so i should probably clarify that when i have issues with ‘the State’ i mean i have issues with those who’ve set themselves up in power in that particular kind of way and expect us all to just accept it. Yeah too damn right i have issues with that. if that makes me an anarchist – fine. i don’t know and i don’t care what labels people come up with. without governments, without the ‘State’ you can still have the kind of social problems we see today and in the past – obviously – and that’s the social reality im interested in. the other thing about the State that ive railed on before is the point about social legitimacy – and that’s what’s significant to me. without the social legitimacy there’s nothing much interesting about it. it would just be another set of people trying to exert power over others.

By: sonia

sonia — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:55:35 +0000

erm..typos -100 – i meant..’there are different types of governance’

( i didn’t mean there’s option a b or c and you can pick one – but simply that existing governments are actually a type of governance mechanism rather)

By: sonia

sonia — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:53:06 +0000

i blame economists for trying to keep us firmly inside the box with this sort of thing.

By: sonia

sonia — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:47:06 +0000

hah ha its a bit of an oxymoron re: the Conservatives wanting a small a state as possible – not really so -that might be what they want others to think. in any case it all depends on what we understand the state to be. Difficult area this but not wanting to spend money on certain things seem to translate as ‘small a state as possible’ but why? that appears to be accepted in our current paradigm of thinking but..why would they be a political party trying to get into power if that’s the case? Sure they want power – centralized power – they want to govern, they want to regulate according to their ideas. different ideas perhaps but in terms of what people understand by government – all these political parties seem to have exactly the same idea. we’re all so hung up on the word government it doesn’t seem to occur to people that you can different types of governance. my objection to the state is simply in most cases it’s taken for granted that it will be what people take for granted as government – coercive, top down, hierarchical, power grabbing and virtual dictatorship for the term in office. it’s a particular form of governance – it doesn’t have to be that way does it? who said that’s the only form of governance and social organization we can have? that’s what im interested in and damn difficult questions they are too. i question the assumption that the state has to be that way . there isn’t any focus on power – just oh what different set of policies can we come up with. there are more significant structural flaws – questions which haven’t even been accepted generally. the point is that there are a lot of aspects to this whole hoo-ha – e.g. the linear thinking to regulate or not to regulate in the same context. ‘government’ ‘regulation’ can all be red herrings. you can have no government and no regulation as we know it and still have powerful groups and social institutions and unwritten rules. i find it more useful to think in terms of those social realities.

By: justforfun

justforfun — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:46:21 +0000

Refresh – fair enough.

It is strange how the Lib Dems have not been able to replace either Labour or the Conservatives when both were out for the count.

In the 90s till 97 why could the LIb Dems not replace Labour?

Since 2001 why have the Lib Dems failed to replace the Conservatives?

It seems that balancing on the centre ground takes alot of unprincipled political skill, rather than principled ideology; and have the Lib Dems got that? Unprincipled political skill does not mean one can’t be an honest polititian, its just that dis-honesty is not so easily unmasked as a failing when on the centre ground, as we have seen with Tony Blair, as political skills are used to mask the dishonesty. There is a greater correcting force on the pendelum if the dishonesty occurs in leaders who are at either end of the spectrum.

Summary – extreme politians have to be honest or they are easily opposed. Centre ground politians are more adept at politics because to occupy the centre ground takes political skill. The politically skillfull can be honest or dishonest, but the dishonest ones use their political skills to mask their dishonesty.

Forget the above – its a load of waffle. As I say – slow work day.

Justforfun

By: Leon

Leon — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:23:03 +0000

Digressiong is cool but this one barely got past post six before going off on an odd tangent. This is a significant development in social media…

By: Chairwoman

Chairwoman — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:08:01 +0000

Leon – These threads are like conversation, people digress, but eventually come back to the original point. I like it.

By: Refresh

Refresh — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:50:45 +0000

Chairwoman,

I was trying to remain calm – and reasoned. OK on the second but failed on the first.

By: Leon

Leon — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:45:18 +0000

LOL! And there was me thinking people actually read the thread titles…:P

By: Chairwoman

Chairwoman — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:43:42 +0000

Leon – Not from me. Sitting on hands in anticipation

Refresh – Intemperate remarks about Thatcher? The late Chairman always said that if he found that he had a terminal illness, he would find away to assassinate her. Unfortunately, he had a heart attack so was denied the pleasure.

By: Jagdeep

Jagdeep — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:40:15 +0000

Cheers Leon – nah mate I didnt get to watch that broadcast! I will when I get the time and keep an eye on the site. I thought you meant a football match or something and was scratching my head

By: Leon

Leon — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:36:12 +0000

Watch what last night Leon? Yeah Iâ€™m with you on the Israel/Palestine thing. But the silence from Geras and Harryâ€™s Place is deafening.

The 18 Doughty Street broadcast.

Regarding Iraq, the thread is up—->:)

By: Jagdeep

Jagdeep — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:33:19 +0000

Watch what last night Leon? Yeah I’m with you on the Israel/Palestine thing. But the silence from Geras and Harry’s Place is deafening.

By: Sid

Sid — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:31:33 +0000

Wonder why we don’t hear anything too clever from our gung-ho “Leftie” pro-war hawks, inclusive of Geras, Cohen, Aaronovitch anymore.

Expect to hear lots of “whatabout (Iran/N Korea/Darfur)” arguments as rebuttal for their support of the Iraqi war instead.

They must feel sooooooo vindicated now.

By: Leon

Leon — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:31:18 +0000

Not worth my time I’m afraid. I put up a post anyway because it is something PP discusses from time to time. That said I don’t expect much to come from it, cue rabid Israel/Palestine “debate”…

Anyway, anyone else watch last night?

By: Jagdeep

Jagdeep — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:26:06 +0000

Leon it would be interesting to read your and their take on it though. =Maybe you could write a post specifically asking them to comment on it and structure the post around their conspicuous silence on it, and the reasons why Norma Geras and Harrys Place are silent about it. Surely they can put a positive spin on it.

By: Leon

Leon — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:13:47 +0000

@ Jagdeep, hehe don’t hold your breath about them two covering that. I was in the middle of writing a piece about it for PP but figured I couldn’t be bothered with the whole thing again. It is starting to feel as though we talk about a very small number of things on here…