Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    This thread is about trying to understand what is currently occurring in the world with the rise of new anti establishment parties, politicians and movements from Donald Trump to Corbyn and even more relevant, the social movement behind them. I want to understand what it is and if and what we should do to change it.

    Although it's a cliche, I think we are seeing a wave of change spread across the western globe in response to rapid globalisation.

    On LBCs James Obriens show, one can often notice how similar in mentality the Corbynites acted to the ukippers. It has long been noted that the far left and right have far more in common than with the so called moderate centre but I think this is different. My theory is that it isn't about ideology (there are plenty of moderate Corbynites and Farage fans- [and whilst I dislike both of them, neither actually have that extreme policies- in fact, short of simple buzzwords they don't really have policies]. Instead this is about a very basic narrative which boils down to this:

    1: A vision of the past (generally revisionist) which generally sees the last thirty or so years as a failure, and crucially of things being far better.

    2: A betrayal by an establishment- Heath taking us into the common market/ Blair costing up to Murdoch in order to help win power. Which leads to:

    3: A binary narrative of the protagonist "we" (decent, ordinary) people vs the antagonist (Establishment). There is no room for bystanders in this conflict between what is perceived to between the good people and the bad establishment. Incidents such as the White van and 'bigoted woman' incidents only reinforce this narrative. Above all this is a conflict in which facts are meaningless in the quest for a reflateable identity.

    Thought?

    Especially ( in no particular order)


    Rakas21
    Bornblue
    ChaoticButterfly
    Jammy Duel
    paul514
    KimKallstrom
    gladders
    L i b
    Observatory
    Foo.mp3
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    My take on it

    I see this as a twofold war between two radically opposed liberal identities :

    A populist libertarian view- people are free and should be left alone from interference as much as possible. Individuals have the right to do almost anything as does the state.

    A paternalist liberal (establishment) view- people need to be protected and nurtured by the state to a certain degree. Individuals and the state have responsibilities to the wider community.

    Both groups have a fundamental disconnect with each other, for reasons such as the the splitting of the media into tabloids and broadsheets ( for instance; The Sun Voted Leave and The Times voted IN!), as well as inequality in education and the cowardice/ ambivalence of the 'paternalist' establishment in challenging the media which sells stories to demographics which don't want to know anything new but want to confirm their existing prejudices- From The Express to the Guardian.

    This has resulted in the blairite method of spin, whilst ultimately successful in the short term in getting elected has failed Spectacularly in the long term where people now look for alternative voices who can provide straight answers hence the appeal of Corbyn and Farage who have seemingly never changed their views. Whilst on the one hand, they are genuine conviction politicians by viewing the world through their narrow lense encourages the view of binaries I talked about in my first post and this binary of thought leads to its own form of unprincipledness as the enemy establishment has become the root of all evil and thus we see the enemy of my enemy is my friend- Hence the support or sympathy of Russia from Corbyn, Trump and Farage.

    The need for authenticity has overwhelmed the need for truth and thus both sides are right in that the establishment are dishonest, often corrupt and out of touch whilst the general population are quite often shockingly ignorant hence the incredulity of the elites and disconnect.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The dark enlightenment/alt-right has been fueled exactly by the progressive left's binary narrative of good people i.e. largely well educated, middle class liberals who talk a lot about racism and sexism, but care little for oppressed women and minorities in a personal way and the groups they have actively demonised such as the working class natives of this country, the upper classes and the religious institutions people have traditionally identified with.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    1: A vision of the past (generally revisionist) which generally sees the last thirty or so years as a failure, and crucially of things being far better
    Centerist, neo-liberal, neo-conservative, Blairite type melds of 'Social Democracy' have failed to deliver a more stable, peaceful, united world/continent/country over the course of the past 30 years, and the stock of society has suffered. From the Corbynite perspective, inequality (particularly wealth) has risen substantially over the past generation (40 years) compared with movement in the other direction just over the channel, on the continent. From the Faragista perspective, mass immigration has changed the face of Britain, and unfortunately in many areas/personal experiences, definitely not for the better

    2: A betrayal by an establishment- Heath taking us into the common market/ Blair costing up to Murdoch in order to help win power
    Can't argue with that, albeit that the a priori nature e.g. scope/scale and deliberateness of such betrayal is of course not all that clear cut, when (retrospectively) viewed through the lens of our evolved and mutually (self)-reinforcing biases

    There is no room for bystanders in this conflict between what is perceived to between the good people and the bad establishment
    This is true of extremists of all shapes and forms, but not true of the conceptualisations of free thinking, learned individuals of a moderate disposition. Clearly, there have been many sheeple betwixt the conflicting parties e.g. those ignorant/self-serving animals with their heads in the trough, content to watch the world go to hell in a hand cart while they chew the cud

    this is a conflict in which facts are meaningless in the quest for a reflateable identity
    Tad bit categorical, although I take your point that the (ethnocentric) patriotic (e.g. ethnicist nativist nationalist) spirit has been invoked, on the one hand, and the idealist ideologue, angry rebel without a cause has been conjured up on t’other :mob:

    (Original post by Davij038)
    liberal identities
    Neither of them are liberal identities. Liberals chew the grass of the centre ground, come rain or shine. No, this is reactionary Conservatism and Communism, and neither of these movements are liberal, in essence (although UKIP may claim to be libertarian, and CPGB to be humanitarian e.g. when it suits/to appease their pseudo-progressive superegos)

    The Sun Voted Leave and The Times voted IN
    You had different broadsheets supporting both sides, and journalists within the ranks of individual publications supporting different sides. Your analysis is as incorrect as it is unsubtly patronising. We won the moral and intellectual argument, and the vote. You’ve had a month to dry your eyes, so grow up and get over it already :yy:

    inequality in education
    Far-right and far-left kids are drawn from overlapping socioeconomic, if not necessarily ethno-cultural, demographics

    'paternalist' establishment in challenging the media which sells stories to demographics which don't want to know anything new but want to confirm their existing prejudices
    This is interesting, are you thinking of any challenge in particular? It’s true that elements of the media, such as the DM and Guardian, have been perfecting the art of presenting a fairly fixed narrative and world view for some time now – and really rather pathetic/telling the way they deal (or failed to deal, adultly/responsibly, in the case of the Guardian) with defeat!

    people now look for alternative voices who can provide straight answers hence the appeal of Corbyn and Farage who have seemingly never changed their views
    Corbyn is not a populist, whereas Farage, like Trump, certainly was. Corbyn’s answers aren’t particularly straight, either, he is really quite a considered guy, so there are times at which he doesn’t pretend that complex problems have immediately appreciable simple answers. Hence, grown up politics. Problem is he’s also a bit woolly and comes off as indecisive. He was able to fall back on the notion of being Mr. Principled for a while but sadly his half-hearted support of Bremain, in spite of his clear and consistent Euroscepticism in evidence over deades, has completely undermined this USP

    Hence the support or sympathy of Russia from Corbyn, Trump and Farage
    Credit where it’s due, only Trump is likely simple/gung-ho enough to back Putin on the basis of 'my enemy’s enemy is my friend'

    (Original post by Atlas Thugged)
    The dark enlightenment/alt-right has been fuelled exactly by the progressive left's binary narrative of good people i.e. largely well educated, middle class liberals who talk a lot about racism and sexism, but care little for oppressed women and minorities in a personal way and the groups they have actively demonised such as the working class natives of this country, the upper classes and the religious institutions people have traditionally identified with
    Spot on. I consider myself very much a part of the dark enlightenment, albeit more by accident than by design, as a Fourth Way pragmatic pluralist who wants the best for his family/people/humanity/earth, irrespective of other ideological parameters/trends
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atlas Thugged)
    The dark enlightenment/alt-right has been fueled exactly by the progressive left's binary narrative of good people i.e. largely well educated, middle class liberals who talk a lot about racism and sexism, but care little for oppressed women and minorities in a personal way and the groups they have actively demonised such as the working class natives of this country, the upper classes and the religious institutions people have traditionally identified with.
    Interesting take but can you elaborate on who these oppressed women and minorities are? And what has been done to demonise the groups you've mentioned?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So in other words OP, what you're saying is:

    We need to get rid of muslims?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Foo.mp3reactionary conservatism and libertarianism do entwine noticeably. I say libertarian because other than older voters I don't see much in the way of traditionalism in this new movement.

    Paternalism is different to communism although obviously communism is paternalist in the extreme.

    I actually didn't mean to draw that conclusion in regards to the media, so sorry about that ( i do actually accept the EU referendum and want to see what happens regarding Brexit and will change my mind if proven wrong. As the Brexit side is already making excuses before we've even left I doubt it though

    You and a number of brexiters do not seem to understand democracy. Just because you won (by a two percent margin) doesn't mean that the remain side should all apologies for being wrong but should scrutinize the winning party just like in general elections. Just like what the opposition does.

    With corbyn- maybe/ maybe not. His fan club certainly is populist

    I think you Wil Need to explain how you're pluralist model will do that. Otherwise it just sounds like another sound bite.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Esoteric-)
    So in other words OP, what you're saying is:

    We need to get rid of muslims?
    Don't think I mentioned this anywhere....


    (Change get rid of to assimilate better and then yes)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    Interesting take but can you elaborate on who these oppressed women and minorities are? And what has been done to demonise the groups you've mentioned?
    One such example would be feminist activism on university campuses. I think every victim of rape has suffered a terrible ordeal and have no wish to trivialise the experiences of women who have suffered what is the worst thing they could suffer, probably aside from losing a child. It is however very odd that statistically the places which are least safe for women, are universities, i.e. the very places where radical feminist activism is the most prevalent. Either you have to concede that the stats are a load of junk or that feminists are so utterly incompetent, they have no business ensuring the safety of women. Let a man do the job.


    The British working classes are the group most marginalised by the left. This became particularly apparent during the European Referendum where the leave campaign failed to muster an argument more complex than ''racist'', ''little Englander'' or my personal favourite ''get educated''.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atlas Thugged)
    One such example would be feminist activism on university campuses. I think every victim of rape has suffered a terrible ordeal and have no wish to trivialise the experiences of women who have suffered what is the worst thing they could suffer, probably aside from losing a child. It is however very odd that statistically the places which are least safe for women, are universities, i.e. the very places where radical feminist activism is the most prevalent. Either you have to concede that the stats are a load of junk or that feminists are so utterly incompetent, they have no business ensuring the safety of women. Let a man do the job.
    I share your distaste for third-wave feminism (and some aspects of second-wave) but I think the prevalence of sexual crime in universities is a 'correlation not causation' issue. I don't see how radical feminism can be linked to the increased frequency. I might be barking up the complete wrong tree but I would say that a more likely explanation would be the concentration of promiscuous and err.. hot-blooded individuals combined with a culture of alcohol and casual sex.
    (Original post by Atlas Thugged)
    The British working classes are the group most marginalised by the left. This became particularly apparent during the European Referendum where the leave campaign failed to muster an argument more complex than ''racist'', ''little Englander'' or my personal favourite ''get educated''.
    I'm assuming you mean the Remain campaign?

    While I am a strong Remain supporter, I admit that the language used by many on the Remain side was extremely unhelpful. However, it isn't fair to say that there was no further argument beyond that. It also didn't help when Gove said we ought to ignore the experts. I see your point about the working classes but you also mentioned the upper class and the religious. The latter I would argue is more due to the secularisation of society than anything to do with the left.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    My take on it

    I see this as a twofold war between two radically opposed liberal identities :

    A populist libertarian view- people are free and should be left alone from interference as much as possible. Individuals have the right to do almost anything as does the state.

    A paternalist liberal (establishment) view- people need to be protected and nurtured by the state to a certain degree. Individuals and the state have responsibilities to the wider community.
    .
    I'm not sure these two groups really capture what's going on here. It's more of an anti-globalization movement which both explains Corbyn, brexiters and Trump. They all attack globalization from completely different positions and ideas but that's for me what links their followers.

    As much as I'm partial to libertarianism to me that seems less popular than ever.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atlas Thugged)

    The British working classes are the group most marginalised by the left. This became particularly apparent during the European Referendum where the leave campaign failed to muster an argument more complex than ''racist'', ''little Englander'' or my personal favourite ''get educated''.
    Blair did more for the working class than any PM in recent history but I agree of late the left have not been very good. I really couldn't tell you what the lefts message was in the EU ref as it was so disorganized.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's simple enough. Globalisation is happening. People hate it - even I hate it. But any country which drops out of globalisation will be very much poorer until such time as all the other countries do the same. So it comes down to what your price is.

    It's the same problem communist countries had: as long as enough other countries were capitalist they could to better in the short term and out-compete the communists.

    The main problem I see with this anti-globalisation movement is the lack of reasoned argument. It would be fine if they just came out and aaid we hate globalisation. But seeminlgy that concept is too complicated for its proponents to understand. They know something is wrong, but they blame it on "the left", "the liberal/conservative stooges in the media", "Eurocrats", "the bankers", "Muslims", "Blairities", rather than taking a step back and looking at what is actually causing disaffection. If you try to make them do so they cast you as one of the evil establishment stopping them blaming their favourite folk devil.

    Being more left-wing I do think the Corbyn types are closer to the truth but it is all very unsophisticated whichever side you come from. Bernie Sanders was the closest this movement came to mounting a sensible rational attack on globalisation while still being electorally popular.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    We have an economic system which creates spectacular winners but far more losers.

    Since Thatcher, and especially since 2010 we have become obsessed with neoliberalism. It's this strange belief that the market will fix everything if we just leave it alone. It's akin to a religious belief, unwavering support for something unproven. Neoliberalism has brought low tax, low spend, privatisation policies.

    Our piblic services, schools, hospitals, social housing etc are all suffering because 'it's not profitable to find them'. That's why they're crumbling. Same with poor working conditions, because testing workers well and paying them well apparently runs counter to the market.

    *The anger that this has caused has been directed by the press to immigrants, the EU, Muslims, public sector workers, the welfare state etc all just to keep attention off the system which causes these ills.

    That's why poor places like Norfolk and Merthyr Tydfil with no immigration voted overwhelmingly to leave.*

    It's a system which creates mass poverty and the anger is purposely directed towards certain groups in society.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    *The main problem I see with this anti-globalisation movement is the lack of reasoned argument. It would be fine if they just came out and aaid we hate globalisation. But seeminlgy that concept is too complicated for its proponents to understand. They know something is wrong, but they blame it on "the left", "the liberal/conservative stooges in the media", "Eurocrats", "the bankers", "Muslims", "Blairities", rather than taking a step back and looking at what is actually causing disaffection. If you try to make them do so they cast you as one of the evil establishment stopping them blaming their favourite folk devil
    Because of the press bombarding the country with stories of how all our problems are to blame on the EU/ Muslims/ Welfare State/ public sector workers etc.

    They divert the anger from globalisation away from the system.*
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    *The main problem I see with this anti-globalisation movement is the lack of reasoned argument. It would be fine if they just came out and aaid we hate globalisation. But seeminlgy that concept is too complicated for its proponents to understand. They know something is wrong, but they blame it on "the left", "the liberal/conservative stooges in the media", "Eurocrats", "the bankers", "Muslims", "Blairities", rather than taking a step back and looking at what is actually causing disaffection. If you try to make them do so they cast you as one of the evil establishment stopping them blaming their favourite folk devil
    Because of the press bombarding the country with stories of how all our problems are to blame on the EU/ Muslims/ Welfare State/ public sector workers etc.

    They divert the anger from globalisation away from the system.*
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    We have an economic system which creates spectacular winners but far more losers.
    Without our economic system, the "losers" would be swimming about in their own **** and dying at 30. It is because of our economic system that even the poorest in this country have access to housing, luxury goods, regular food, education, world-class healthcare and the rest.

    Since Thatcher, and especially since 2010 we have become obsessed with neoliberalism. It's this strange belief that the market will fix everything if we just leave it alone. It's akin to a religious belief, unwavering support for something unproven. Neoliberalism has brought low tax, low spend, privatisation policies.
    Nope. Liberal economics triumphed over protectionism in the 19th century. That's when we've had those liberal economics that you dislike. You mention low taxation and low public spending - comparative to what? Both are certainly far up on most of our history. Indeed, to find a favourable comparison, you'd have to look at our post-war reconstruction period.

    It's hardly surprising that we returned to more normal levels of public spending, borrowing and tax after that - which reached into the 1970s. Our economy has benefited enormously as a result.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I think that the different points from different people in this thread explain it well.

    Although i don't blame globalisation so much as the domestic establishment for these failings i do think many people pair these together since the time that politics began to fail many of the masses was a time of intense globalisation.

    Here in the UK though i think that the two largest problems fueling the movement against the establishment are both their own fault.

    On the one hand you have a very London centric focus with most governments of the last 40 years not giving a crap about people outside of the major cities which has meant that while the country has benefitted from gloablisation on net, post-industrial towns have simply been left to rot fueling the belief that the establishment has abandoned them (especially when Labour never tackled these issues either).

    On the other hand you have the immigrant issue which is secondary to the point above. At the same time as post industrial areas have been rotting, you've had a London centric metropolitan establishment tell the people of Bradford and Hull that they should sit back as thousands more immigration come to compete for jobs with them, that multiculturalism and diversity are good things and that reporting the rapes of people in Rotherham is racist. This in tandem with the ground work layed by the London vs the rest approach has created a very angry native population.

    I'd add that class does effect things somewhat. As somebody a few posts above pointed out we have a suburban middle class who have done quite well for themselves and care about issues which frankly are of no relevance to somebody on the breadline. When the lower classes then raise their concerns they are talked down to by what they then consider an arrogant establishment who may have never done a days shift work in their life. Champagne socialism is the epitimay of this whereby the Islington set care more about Palestine than they do immigration..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    L i b


    So what dodo you think is behind this recent era of protest politics?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The alt-left and alt-right are unrelated to the "Dark Enlightenment".

    The West has a civic religion which could be called Equalism: the belief that all people are literally the same, or at least the same at birth. This is obviously not true because there are biological differences between people, for which there is enormous evidence both from day-to-day life and from systematic studies, and which Darwin as good as proved by pure deduction from very trivial observations. I call Equalism a religion because belief in it persists despite it being completely contrary to evidence and reason.

    Both the alt-left and the alt-right believe in this state religion of Equalism. The "Dark Enlightenment" is a bunch of rebuttals of Equalism and some much more vague ideas about what could replace it. It is more interesting than the alt-left and alt-right, and will ultimately be much more important, but it has not yet won any significant influence on politics.

    The alt-left and alr-right differ from one another and the establishment only on how many unprincipled exceptions to Equalism they are willing to accept. The alt-right are pragmatists who would like to see more unprincipled exceptions to Equalism like banning immigration ("I'm not racist, but..."). The alt-left are fanatics who would like to eliminate all unprincipled exceptions (e.g. NGO employees who do not report their own rape by immigrants for political reasons). The establishment are basically alt-left people who cannot live in pure ideology and have to deal with the practical problems of imposing ideas that are at odds with reality. There is no real difference between them and either the alt-left or the alt-right; Equalism-as-politics is impossible because Equalism-as-science is false. Either you have unprincipled exceptions or the regime implodes. It's only a matter of degree.

    The alt-left are way more crazy than the alt-right, in the sense of being far less in touch with reality, but the alt-right may be more dangerous, as they want to make Equalism more tolerable as a state religion without fixing its underlying problems. Nothing will come of the alt-left, which has no programme. Their programme is simply that of the government and the institutions with magic and cupcakes. The success of the alt-right risks the survival of Equalism, at least in a Brezhnevian undead state. The alt-left future is the colonisation of Europe by Africa and Arabia. The alt-right future is a race classification boards paid for by the NHS. Time for some better ideas.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.