Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

I'm Starting To Think That The Left Might Actually Be Right

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8655106/Im-starting-to-think-that-the-Left-might-actually-be-right.html

It has taken me more than 30 years as a journalist to ask myself this question, but this week I find that I must: is the Left right after all? You see, one of the great arguments of the Left is that what the Right calls “the free market” is actually a set-up.

The rich run a global system that allows them to accumulate capital and pay the lowest possible price for labour. The freedom that results applies only to them. The many simply have to work harder, in conditions that grow ever more insecure, to enrich the few. Democratic politics, which purports to enrich the many, is actually in the pocket of those bankers, media barons and other moguls who run and own everything.

In the 1970s and 1980s, it was easy to refute this line of reasoning because it was obvious, particularly in Britain, that it was the trade unions that were holding people back. Bad jobs were protected and good ones could not be created. “Industrial action” did not mean producing goods and services that people wanted to buy, it meant going on strike. The most visible form of worker oppression was picketing. The most important thing about Arthur Scargill’s disastrous miners’ strike was that he always refused to hold a ballot on it.

.......

The Left was right that the power of Rupert Murdoch had become an anti-social force. The Right (in which, for these purposes, one must include the New Labour of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) was too slow to see this, partly because it confused populism and democracy.

Sorry to disappoint those thinking this was going to be a Labour supporting piece. This has more to do with actual political ideology than our corporate political parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what the Right calls “the free market....

....isn't.

Doesn't mean that the free market is bad (that's another debate), just that the current economic setup in the West is misnamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not about left <> right, it's about top <> bottom (and bottom means 99% of the population).

Left <> right is just smokescreen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not about left <> right, it's about top <> bottom (and bottom means 99% of the population).

Left <> right is just smokescreen.

The left argue that right wing policies have caused problems. The right argue in their defence that right wing policies have never really been implemented properly.

The right argue that left wing policies have caused problems. The left argue in their defence that left wing policies have never really been implemented properly.

Consequently, the arguments are a bit pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument could be made, that the socialist governments did, use the capitalist system to create an enviroment, where the excess's of capitalism, over the long term brought about a socialist state.

The most influential post war Labour Party thinkers, have suggested this. Or intimated it.

If you read Browns introduction to the book, 'The Future of Socialism' by Anthony Crossland, 1956, which is THE most influential book in post-war British Labour Party thinking, Brown urges the long term view of drastic economic and political change, [as does Bernard Crick, another Labour Party philosopher] spanning not years, but generations.

And how in those generations, Socialists, must carry out much 'confidence building' amongst supporters, with the long term goal, over generations, of bringing about the original goals and objectives of Socialism.

Its also a theme of 19th century Russian literature.

It may even be that, however far fetched it sounds, senior figures in the Labour Government, were being affected subconsciously, by their lifetime of socialist doctrine.

Which is a scary thought. Treasonous as it sounds, and Impossible to prove, every politicians realise's their term is short.

It actually makes a lot of sense.

That's why you never see any apologies or acceptance of the disastrous nature of their social policies from the fanatic Brown.

The destruction of our lives, the millions of us who have suffered, are just acceptable collateral damage.

Labour's term was just a battle, in a long war.

On the path to their socialist utopia. [Which doesnt exist]

Edited by Milton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'The rich' spend a lot of their time trying to make each other less rich. There is no grand conspiracy.

We are all immensely better off as a result of capitalism. No other political system possible to implement on humans would have resulted in such an explosive improvement in general quality of life.

So much so, that huge tracts of the population now hold the point of view that one need not work, and may not only hope to be provided for by the government, but may insist upon it.

Of course, it helps the conscience if you can collect welfare disguised as a public sector job, with a union to assure you of your entitlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left argue that right wing policies have caused problems. The right argue in their defence that right wing policies have never really been implemented properly.

The right argue that left wing policies have caused problems. The left argue in their defence that left wing policies have never really been implemented properly.

Consequently, the arguments are a bit pointless.

You are lost in the smokescreen and completely missed my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'The rich' spend a lot of their time trying to make each other less rich. There is no grand conspiracy.

We are all immensely better off as a result of capitalism. No other political system possible to implement on humans would have resulted in such an explosive improvement in general quality of life.

So much so, that huge tracts of the population now hold the point of view that one need not work, and may not only hope to be provided for by the government, but may insist upon it.

Of course, it helps the conscience if you can collect welfare disguised as a public sector job, with a union to assure you of your entitlement.

I'm afraid I would disagree with that, it could be the capitalist system was lucky to be around when there was a huge explosion in scientific achievements.

German engineering didn't suffer under the Nazi's, there jet engines and rockets where well ahead of the Allies technological advances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'The rich' spend a lot of their time trying to make each other less rich. There is no grand conspiracy.

We are all immensely better off as a result of capitalism. No other political system possible to implement on humans would have resulted in such an explosive improvement in general quality of life.

So much so, that huge tracts of the population now hold the point of view that one need not work, and may not only hope to be provided for by the government, but may insist upon it.

Of course, it helps the conscience if you can collect welfare disguised as a public sector job, with a union to assure you of your entitlement.

If this particular manifestation of capitalism was at all successful we woulndn't need welfare. Full stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are lost in the smokescreen and completely missed my point.

I was making a separate point, I didn't mean to reply to your post, my mistake. However I was actually saying more or less the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this particular manifestation of capitalism was at all successful we woulndn't need welfare. Full stop.

That's a good point. Natural resources are denied to people because they are held privately, an arrangement enforced by the state. This is the root cause of why welfare is needed, in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you could also successfully argue, that [paradoxically] a two party democratic system can actually be many times, more harmful to the population than a dictatorship would be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I would disagree with that, it could be the capitalist system was lucky to be around when there was a huge explosion in scientific achievements.

German engineering didn't suffer under the Nazi's, there jet engines and rockets where well ahead of the Allies technological advances.

That's an interesting argument, although I would say that the social, cultural and geographic conditions that led to the explosion of scientific achievements that was the enlightenment were the same that made capitalism both possible and successful. Ideas have their moments in history, but they can never be absolutes. I can easily imagine a resource deprived future in which a completely murderous and centralised authoritarian society would out-compete all others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
he was so often courted by prime ministers that he wished they would leave him alone.

...Brown was a socialist communist...and he was Murdoch's best friend ...time to call the men with the white coats for this journalist.... :rolleyes::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I would disagree with that, it could be the capitalist system was lucky to be around when there was a huge explosion in scientific achievements.

German engineering didn't suffer under the Nazi's, there jet engines and rockets where well ahead of the Allies technological advances.

... and American Nuclear weapon research was rather superior to the Axis powers, with conclusive results.

Wartime spending is a poor analogy; throwing eyewatering sums at weapons research is not a measure of the general viability of the economic and political system concerned.

Actually, thinking about it the analogy isn't bad. The axis powers had lots of daft vanity projects directed by a tiny clique, which consumed vast resources and contributed little to the war. The allies stuck with stuff that could be mass produced and just worked.

Socialism vs Capitalism in a nutshell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good point. Natural resources are denied to people because they are held privately, an arrangement enforced by the state.

This is the root cause of why welfare is needed, in my view.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Left or right is irrelevant. All that matters is the money supply, and who and by how much is it manipulated/abused. Its the key to everything.

Exactly.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild (bankster)

---

Edited by awake_eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this particular manifestation of capitalism was at all successful we woulndn't need welfare. Full stop.

As I said, welfare is both a result and cause of roughly half the population slowly coming to the conclusion that they don't really need to work, or at least do productive things while they are at 'work'. Nanny State will look after them.

You then get a process whereby the other half of the population realise there is not much point carrying on being productive, as the rewards are just snatched away and handed to people who then go out their way to make life a misery for all.

We are well into the second bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and American Nuclear weapon research was rather superior to the Axis powers, with conclusive results.

Wartime spending is a poor analogy; throwing eyewatering sums at weapons research is not a measure of the general viability of the economic and political system concerned.

Actually, thinking about it the analogy isn't bad. The axis powers had lots of daft vanity projects directed by a tiny clique, which consumed vast resources and contributed little to the war. The allies stuck with stuff that could be mass produced and just worked.

Socialism vs Capitalism in a nutshell.

I think you could argue that capitalism made some inventions available to the most amount of people, but it wasn't responsible for those inventions existing in the first place. Of course, neither was socialism, although I think there is a place for an environment where commercial pressures don't exist to the same extent. Large companies seem to evolve and improve, rather than invent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, welfare is both a result and cause of roughly half the population slowly coming to the conclusion that they don't really need to work, or at least do productive things while they are at 'work'. Nanny State will look after them.

You then get a process whereby the other half of the population realise there is not much point carrying on being productive, as the rewards are just snatched away and handed to people who then go out their way to make life a misery for all.

We are well into the second bit.

Welfare is there because people are denied access to natural resources to live independently by their own labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welfare is there because people are denied access to natural resources to live independently by their own labour.

...excuses from a population in decline.... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welfare is there because people are denied access to natural resources to live independently by their own labour.

Bingo.

Generalyl the left and the right have taken our current social arrangement as read and then wanted to either consolidate landowner power (blue team) or nick some of the gains to hand out to ameliorate the worst excesses of the paradigm (red team.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reservations I have always harboured about the free market argument have come to fruititon so clearly over the last few years:

Voices that call for deregulation the loudest almost always do so not out of their concern for efficient markets but because they profit from their dominance, exploit the unenlightened and evade their societal responsibilities.

Murdoch is the very epitome : His control of the media, his exploitation of the grieving and the naive* and his off-shore tax arrangements.

---

I don't know about you but my stomach churned when News International's rags ran their Sarah's Law campaign. There was this family, the Paynes, who had suffered loss in the most appalling circumstances and there was the-then Rebekah Wade knee-deep in cynical self-righteousness doing her master's bidding calling for a name and shame law.

I was disgusted beyond belief at the way NI whipped up viligantism - which ended up smugly attacking perfectly innocent third parties. I was disgusted by the way the Paynes were exploited to further newspaper sales and I was sickened by the way the NI campaign further ratcheted up the-then general assault on the male population.

How delicious now, that NI's visceral malice has come round to shaft them right slap bang up the ****.

PS : For all Brooks's faux sanctimoniousness regarding paedophiles, the reason she turned down the MPs expenses scandal story was . . . because there wasn't enough sex in it.

That monster Roy Whiting may have violated and taken an innocent life but Murdoch et al have done the same to the entire English speaking world.

:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

Edited by nmarks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.