Loss of authority is capitalist nonsense…
Mick Hall’s been a long time contributor to Slugger. About six months ago he set up his own blog, and has been merrily (often not so merrily) blogging his own view of the world from the left. Yesterday, he wrote that the demise of societal authority, if it is true at all, is a result of the dominance of Capital over Labour, and the endless grind of ‘getting and spending’. Think previously placid but low earning Dublin bus drivers letting rip at the most trivial communication gap between him and the Spanish migrant worker.
Tags: Society
“…everything from health, education, housing, employment etc will be doled out by the state” Harry Flashman (again).
Except of course, Harry, as I pointed out to The Dubliner, that it won’t. Health, education and public housing, areas that were formerly under the state umbrella are fast being privatised and as a consequence great swathes of former public employees are made redundant and either rehired by private corporations to do the same job (and more) for greatly reduced pay and poorer conditions. Many other areas of government employment as well are also being hived off to the private sector and this very issue is probably the most contentious of all in employer/employee relationships in the UK in the last twenty years. How can it be possible that you have not been aware of this? You simply invert the known evidence when it conflicts with this absolutely screwball theory, which you mentioned in an earlier post, that “socialism isn’t about economics”. Yeah, and the Pope’s got nothing to do with Catholicism.
The Communist Party in Britain has been dead for over twenty years, the Labour Party is totally controlled by business interests and the Right; of the smaller “Left” groups the largest, the Socialist Workers’ Party was only ever a tool for undermining the Communist Party and creating disillusionment among young people attracted to socialism and of the myriad other tiny, tiny Left groups the individual members, never mind the groups cannot agree with each other. So who the hell is organising this conspiracy against the traditional family? It sure as hell ain’t me.
I would be more inclined to blame Henry VIII meself. He started all this undermining of the “traditional” two-parent family way back in the days with his “one husband, six wives, not enough children” shenanigans. Don’t tell me he was a secret communist? Joe McCarthy would accuse people of being “premature anti-Fascists”. The old Fascists were a bit strong on the “traditional family” business, do you think old Joe missed out here by not “naming” Henry?
Rory,
Are you not paying attention? Brown and Balls are already rowing back on Blair’s academy programme, which itself had been watered down by New (or should that be Old?) Labour backbenchers bwefore it was enacted. Everything in the UK points to the state expanding its role in education, whether it be children’s diet or schemes to educate bad parents.
But the point is that it’s no longer possible for the Left to go back to the old days because the type of economy that allowed for mass state ownership is gone forever. The New Left has turned its attention to the structures of society in order to achieve the egalitarianism that it couldn’t get with state ownership of industry. The obvious starting point is the family. Why don’t you accept that your lot are winning? Why do you think that socialism has no non-economic objectives?
Why do you think that socialism has no non-economic objectives?
What are these objectives Watchman? What is the end result that ‘the Left’ is aiming for?
Conservatives who haven’t sold out believe that a limited state is there to serve people, socialists believe that people are there to serve a benevolent, all-wise state. So to answer your question as succinctly as possible for someone who wants to clock off for the weekend, Stiofan, the socialism of the modern Left in Britain is about egalitarianism through a strong state by social engineering. That means involvement in areas such as education (levelling down through the comprehensive system) and family policy (deconstruction of the traditional family unit).
Don’t be daft, Watchman. Conservatives, whatever we may think of them, never sell out. To whom would they sell? The poor? We cannot afford them. And we don’t really have much use for them.
And the only “people” that “true” Conservatives believe the state is there to serve is themselves and their kind.
The state in all and any of its manifestations in whatever time and under whatever system remains as it always has – no more and no less than the armed might of the ruling class at any given time.
In this particular time and place in which I dwell that ruling class is international capitalism which cannot help but be oppressive of my well being and of my humanity and of those which I know and love and many, I suspect, that I do not know, including some like your good self, who seem mightily deluded and confused by those who are more powerful and who have contrived to acquire, by fair means or foul (usually foul), a greater share of the wealth created by others than you less ruthless or more timid mortals so that you hold them and their establishment and dictats in awe.
In any case why worry? It shall not survive this century and neither, I think, shall I.
Which is nice. It will not, I think, be a pretty spectacle.
*Harry
What exactly do they want to do with our families and our minds once they have control of them?*
What a simply absurd question Stiofan, haven’t you read about the history of the twentieth century?
Socialists seek one thing and one thing only – power, power for themselves, absolute power for themselves. Naive old fools like Rory believe that socialism has something to do with economic equality or who owns what coal mine, it is no such thing; socialism is whatever it takes to get socialists into power, nothing else matters.
When in power the object of socialist government is to remain in power. To do this they must literally criminalise opposition to their rule, they must downgrade every citizen to the status of a state possession. No aspect of society is too petty to be exempt from their control, everything from introducing laws about what parents may feed their children to what religious beliefs may be acceptable are used to further extend state control into every nook and cranny of our lives.
Socialists have always been hopeless at running industries or agriculture but they are superb at maintaining control of people’s lives, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea all proved this. European socialists realised this a long time ago, hence their adoption of the Frankfurt School of “Cultural Marxism”, they are happy to let Tesco run the supermarkets or Mittal run the steel plants as long as they control the people.
Do you remember Thatcher in the 1980′s, how we were told she was setting up a sinister quasi-fascist police state? Did Thatcher introduce a DNA register which holds the records of millions of British citizens including children, including innocent people? Did Thatcher try to bring in bio-metric id cards that would be needed in order to walk outside our front doors and which could be demanded at any time by policemen? Did Thatcher introduce a policy of a ten year plan to transform the relationship between parents and children to one where parents were to be reduced to the status of supervised guardians whilst the children become the property of the state?
No she did not but after ten years the true nasty control instinct of socialists down through the ages is coming fully out into the open. Anyone with children should be getting very concerned about where this government is going.
It is surely no surprise that hundreds of thousands of British people are emigrating annually, as they quietly sell their homes, say good bye to their friends and leave the land that their fathers and grandfathers fought for but which today would be unrecognisable to them.
“Anyone with children should be getting very concerned about where this government is going.”
I understand that at least two fathers, Prince Charles, the prince..er.. thingy and Bryan Ferry, the crooner chappie are “utterly appalled”, Harry but not all people with children surely? If you are right aren’t the socialist mummies and daddies quite happy? Shouldn’t Herself and meself start at it again? (“Not on your Nelly!”, sez she! Some bloody socialist she is!)
” It is surely no surprise that hundreds of thousands of British people are emigrating annually, as they quietly sell their homes, say good bye to their friends and leave the land that their fathers and grandfathers fought for but which today would be unrecognisable to them.”
It will come as even less of a surprise, Harry, to learn that tears will by now be trickling down the cheeks of most who have read this – tears of mirth accompanied by howls and shrieks of chortling laughter as we roll about on the floor clutching our stomaches, helplessly pleading, “No more, no more. Mercy! I can’t take no more!”
“A small point I know but The Dubliner’s whole silly argument falls flat on the simple acknowledgement of the rapid and escalating denationalisation of formerly state controlled sectors of industry…” – Rory
You’re not too adroit at following an argument, are you?
“They seem to think that there is some alternative source of power within the state that is forcing a left wing agenda.†– Nestor Makhno
The argument I made relates to what that “alternative source of power” is, not to what the actual power is. Ergo, it is not refuted by citing the non-leftish actions of the actual power and ignoring the influence of those who successfully promote a “left wing agenda†by stealth (the alternative source of power). The left agenda is successfully promoted by those who don’t have actual power to those who do by disguising it as something else, and appealing to the people over the heads of the actual power thereby forcing the actual power to comply. Hence:
[i]“For one example, look at the environmental lobby and how that agenda is being manipulated by the left to serve its own ends. The ultimate goal of those who promote a left agenda is to create a centralised state that controls the means of production, forcing out the private sector and replacing it with the state-controlled public sector. That is the essence of socialism. If you are a socialist, then that is your goal.
One way to accomplish this is to [b]force the state to intervene[/b] in the private sector and attempt to regulate it out of existence, stagnating enterprise with proverbial red tape, such that it requires a legal department the size of the state (conveniently enough) to operate the means of production. Now most people understand instinctively that over-regulation is bad for industry, so [b]you have to sell it to them as being unavoidable to advance some greater goal.[/b] To this end, [b]the environmental lobby sell it to the people by claiming that the future of the planet is at risk as the direct result of under-regulated capitalist enterprise.[/b] In short, if we don’t kill off the ‘selfish’ private sector and replace it with ‘ethical’ state-controlled public sector then we are all headed for mass extinction.
This is very deliberate propaganda and [b]it all leads one way[/b]: to a state that has more and more control over the private sector until it inevitably displaces it with state-controlled production. It is not a coincidence that the Green Party is a socialist party: [b]it is using environmental scaremongering to promote a socialist agenda.[/b]” [/i]
By the way, this insidious method of promoting socialism is an apt indicator of the contempt in which socialists hold the public: they seek to subvert the democratic process and introduce their state-controlled utopia sans all debate and choice.
“Conservatives, whatever we may think of them, never sell out. To whom would they sell? The poor? We cannot afford them. And we don’t really have much use for them.” – Rory
The ‘poor’ have a lot of use for Ireland’s richest man – 4,500 of them who depend on him directly for their income and the tens of thousands who benefit indirectly through jobs that are dependent on his entrepreneurial flair and through the taxes he pays to the state and the wealth that his manufacturing exports bring into the state. Who would have created those jobs if not Sean Quinn? A socialist committee of The Former Oppressed But Now Just Destitute?
You really don’t understand the economics of wealth creation at all, do you? All your really want is a greater share of the wealth that others have created, not caring how wealth distribution is impossible without wealth creation or how wealth creation is inseparable from the exceptional talents of a minority (the “ruling class” as you refer to them). In reality, you’re just greedy and you use the label of socialism to disguise the selfish nature of your ambition.
Equality means only equality of opportunity, not that all are equal. Talent isn’t distributed equally, and neither is wealth. And one of those unequal mix of talents is the intelligence, cunning, strategic vision, ambition, hard work, etc, that is required to be a businessman. Your socialist workers committee won’t find a Bill Gates or a Michael O’Leary to build your enterprises because those folks prosper in the free market (and the rest of society prospers by their flair) because they it is designed to allow each individual reach his full potential. The more goods and services of economic value that society produces, the wealthier it is. And those geniuses will prosper outside of your socialist utopia, your little idyll will sink into backwardness and poverty, as its Committee of the Mediocre will be outclassed by those who rise to the top by their brilliance.
“In any case why worry? It shall not survive this century and neither, I think, shall I.” – Rory
Well, if you’re just hanging around looking for once-off windfall via your proposed seizure of the wealth of others, don’t let that dream delay your departure.
Typo: “And those geniuses will prosper outside of your socialist utopia [i]and[/i] your little idyll will sink into backwardness and poverty, as its Committee of the Mediocre will be outclassed [i]in the global marketplace[/i] by those who rise to the top by their brilliance.”
“One way to accomplish this is to force the state to intervene in the private sector and attempt to regulate it out of existence, stagnating enterprise with proverbial red tape, such that it requires a legal department the size of the state (conveniently enough) to operate the means of production.
Thank you, Dubliner. Now I understand what is behind your grievance. It is the stifling bureaucracy introduced by the state (via EEC regulation in this area) the cost of which only large economic units such as multi-nationals are able to absorb and which drives their smaller competitors out of existence. I should be quite peeved too if I were a small to medium sized businessman (I am merely a small to medium sized pensioner alas). And indeed I am unhappy to lose the variegated shopping culture that a multitude of small businesses once provided and detest the heartless anonymity of the malls, the shopping centre and the chain store.
But you seem totally blind to the reality that the state applies such regulation not to take more power to itself nor to undermine capitalism in any way. It does so as an agent of its (the state’s) boss – international corporate capitalism – whose sole interest it serves. I fear you are like the British defences at Singapore – your guns are all pointed in the wrong direction.
You say that I “really don’t understand the economics of wealth creation at all” and point to
the example of “The ‘poor’ (who) have a lot of use for Ireland’s richest man – 4,500 of them who depend on him directly for their income”.
I understand enough at least to know that it is Sean Quinn who depends for his unwarranted income on the profits created by his workforce and the tens of thousands of others across the world who sweat for pittances to create what he supplies and sells. How else would it be possible for one man to acquire such disgusting amounts of wealth? He could not possibly create it all on his own. He requires many, many others to do the wealth creation while he and his shareholders happily sit back and scoop up the largesse.
The present apparent (and I would say fleeting) triumph of international capitalism cannot change the basic economic rules it merely magnifies the grotesquerie of their application.
Harry
Okay – they want control. I’ve got that bit. But what do they intend to do when they have control – what is their ultimate aim?
Power for power’s sake? Wealth? Sexual gratification? The destruction of the human race? What is their ultimate goal in all of this?
“But what do they intend to do when they have control”
It might be expected that their fear for their “wives and children”, Stiofán, is that, if their improbable nightmare is realised, we would eat them. The sad reality is that they are probably much more afraid that we should say to them, “Hello, how are you? You’re very welcome. Please come in, sit down while I get you all a drink and you can tell us all what you really think about this old world and all that’s in it”. Scary, or what?