|
U-Know! Forum » Bernie Ecclestone - Uber twat! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Feb 24, 2011, 09:40
Feb 24, 2011, 09:38
|
||
|
Motorsport is one of those things like golf, rugby union and tennis that leaves me totally cold. I just don't get it though F1 seems to me to be as close as we have got to international corporate sponsored / funded teams battling it out a la Rollerball in a sport that ordinary people can never hope to experience first hand as amateurs. Not sure I can get excited about the idea of supporting Renault United or whatever though it is a fine line between that and a team owned by any other bilionaire. Then again all pro sports are a con on one level and demand a suspension of disbelief. I can do that for football and ice hockey but not for F1 or the US Open or whatever. As an aside this is one of the very few HH posts recently to even allude to what is going on in North Africa and the Middle East. Is this because of "our" (ie the British left's) somewhat conflicted relationship with Gaddafi over the years or just a general (and very wise) adherence to the don't-speak-of-that-which-you-don't-know maxim?
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Feb 24, 2011, 10:04
Feb 24, 2011, 10:03
|
||
|
I'm not aware of 'our left' being conflicted over Gaddafi ever, there has always been a general consensus that he's an unpleasant cunt and completely mental. I mean, IIRC even the RCP didn't like him, and they traditionally got all aroused and excited by anything that looked remotely like a dictator. Care to elucidate on that one, name names etc. I don't think its a don't speak about what you don't know, it's more likely to be a what's the point thing. As in firstly, we know the score, the revolutions are a good thing. And secondly, what on earth would be the point of talking about it on U-know considering the general level of non-debate and lack of point rants that occur here.
|
|||
|
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Feb 24, 2011, 10:23
Feb 24, 2011, 10:20
|
||
|
stray wrote: I'm not aware of 'our left' being conflicted over Gaddafi ever, there has always been a general consensus that he's an unpleasant cunt and completely mental. I mean, IIRC even the RCP didn't like him, and they traditionally got all aroused and excited by anything that looked remotely like a dictator. Care to elucidate on that one, name names etc. I don't think its a don't speak about what you don't know, it's more likely to be a what's the point thing. As in firstly, we know the score, the revolutions are a good thing. And secondly, what on earth would be the point of talking about it on U-know considering the general level of non-debate and lack of point rants that occur here. Left in the very broadest sense. The WRP and Galloway instantly spring to mind. We would have to argue over whether Blair was ever a figure of the left per se. I think we would have to agree not. And there was the whole my enemy's enemy is my friend dynamic which was especially prevelant in the 70s and early 80s. We prefer to forget it now but there were some very strange bedfellows on both sides of the political divide in the 60s, 70s and 80s. And equally loathsome to Thatcher's sucking up to Pinochet. A draft resolution adopted by the WRP Political Committee on July 28, 1980 declared that: “The Workers Revolutionary Party salutes the courageous and tireless struggle of Colonel Gaddafi whose Green Book has guided the struggle to introduce workers’ control of factories, government offices and the diplomatic service, and in exposing the reactionary maneuvers of Sadat, Beigin and Carter… We stand ready to mobilize the British workers in defense of the Libyan Jamahiriya and explain the teachings of the Green Book as part of the anti-imperialist struggle.” This was fairly stock rhetoric in that period. Though I never bought into the Ken / Ted Knight thing. That was a smear. I actually thought it was exactly the sort of thing that we would normally discuss here. Mea culpa.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Feb 24, 2011, 10:20
|
||
Okay, Gadaffi was it seems one of the RCPs fave dictators, my bad. But as said, the RCP were always the exception to this countries left.
|
|||
|
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Feb 24, 2011, 10:29
Feb 24, 2011, 10:27
|
||
|
stray wrote: Okay, Gadaffi was it seems one of the RCPs fave dictators, my bad. But as said, the RCP were always the exception to this countries left. I know what you mean but the exceptions talked loudest and also reflected a genuine conflict I think among people with an Any One But America stance on foreign policy. Back then I hasten to add. Not now. IIRC were certainly plenty of British academics who were Pol Pot apologists for example but I would have to trawl back through more than my muddled memory banks to substantiate that! The whole Caldwell thing was not an exceptional case I don't think. Not just Brits either.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Feb 24, 2011, 10:34
Feb 24, 2011, 10:32
|
||
|
Yeah, Galloway, I just knew you were going to bring him up. He is always the poster child for what's wrong with the left even now when he is pretty much completely marginalised and taken seriously by nobody. Galloway is a Stalinist, still, our left hasn't been inclined that way for a bloody long time now. Galloway, like most stalinists still kicking around, are nothing but self publicists now, they've left any trace of a consistent politic far behind. Even during the 70s the majority of the left wing parties agreed Stalin = Bad. Yep, enemy of my enemy is a definite thing, and it's still around in the form of the SWP supporting Hammas (irresepctive of it completely flying in the face of Trotskys definition of 'United Front'). The WRP collapsed back then for being silly, a lot to do with its pledging of 'military support' for various causes when they erm... didn't actually have a military wing. That and the usual sectarian bickering that occurs when you're silly and fail to be internally consistent with your politics. They're back now I think actually. The major left party is still unfortunately labour, and they have always had right-wing profit led foreign policy. So.. there have never been any surprises with their actions. Saying that they weren't remotely happy clappy supporters of the Gadaffi regime, until Blair turned up to get BP in there, and our arms companies. Up till then they were definitely in the Gadaffi is bad camp. At the extremes of the left in Europe (not here so much) there was support for him, purely because he was financing their terrorist activities. It was erm... 'unconditional but critical support' My inital premise still holds though, the left in this country in terms of pure numbers did not/has not supported Gadaffi completely unconditionally.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Feb 24, 2011, 10:42
Feb 24, 2011, 10:37
|
||
I don't think they talk the loudest, they're just the ones that the media pick up on for obvious controversial reasons. Like Galloway. I completely concur about Pol Pot apologists, there have even been RAF and ETA apologists too. These have still been minority views within our left though, they just get their lunacy broadcast because it makes the media get in a tizzy.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Feb 24, 2011, 10:39
|
||
Heh, anyway, for these reasons and many others I prefer a black flag these days, but I'm not opposed to it containing a touch of red IYKWIM.
|
|||
|
IanB 6761 posts |
Feb 24, 2011, 10:39
|
||
|
stray wrote: At the extremes of the left in Europe (not here so much) there was support for him, purely because he was financing their terrorist activities. It was erm... 'unconditional but critical support' My inital premise still holds though, the left in this country in terms of pure numbers did not/has not supported Gadaffi completely unconditionally. Agreed.
|
|||
|
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Feb 24, 2011, 18:08
Feb 24, 2011, 10:55
|
||
|
stray wrote: I don't think they talk the loudest, they're just the ones that the media pick up on for obvious controversial reasons. Like Galloway. I completely concur about Pol Pot apologists, there have even been RAF and ETA apologists too. These have still been minority views within our left though, they just get their lunacy broadcast because it makes the media get in a tizzy. True but the Any One But America thing ran a lot deeper than the tizzy-inducing lunatics. There was I thnk a wider aquiescence and inner conflict among people I knew. There was certainly a bit of post Vietnam confusion about what was what and who was who. I am not saying they were all secret RAF sympathisers but I can certainly recall a general relief if some appalling outrage or another had been committed by one of "theirs" rather than one of "ours". Pre internet it was like following the overseas football scores in the papers. People seemed to hold distant allegianaces to acronyms that came out of Africa and Latin America, in particular, allegiances that came at no price whatsoever. There was also a fair amount of flirting with some nasty types in rock n roll too (rock n rollers love acronyms!). No change there of course! And in 1977 to 1980 ish a lot of ones information about global politcs at a tender age would come from rock n roll not the New Statesman or whatever. I hate citing Galloway but he did what he did and said what he said. I am not doing the Daily Mail thing. He doesn't deny his admiration for Gaddafi historically. Now he seems to enjoy using him to bait Blair and the security services! Your comment about self-publicising / self-agrandising old Stalinists is spot on. The ones I went to college with circa 1980 were all about that. Even then.
|
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
