The Left: Moribund.

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks am - you are a very considerate person.

[Mandryka]

I should have thought that as Europe stares down both barrels of financial calamity, (some people don't seem to realise how bad things really are), and as we see glimpses of the social disorder that may occur as a result, that the time for "narrow" self interest were past.

As no less a person than the former Lord Stansgate once observed, poverty always moves people to the Right.

If there is a serious breakdown in law and order as a result of government-inspired cutbacks, Cameron and co will need tofind some way of policing this crisis - which will prove difficult if they are also intent on cutting the police.

Somehow, I don't think the so-called 'Big Society' has an application here: if you start asking 'volunteers' to be last resort police officers, you have a short cut to vigilantism: which is maybe what we're heading for, in any case.

[Serial_Apologist]

As no less a person than the former Lord Stansgate once observed, poverty always moves people to the Right.

Similar to my analogy with water spiralling anticlockwise down the average pluughole in the northern hemisphere: drop most people into an ideological vacuum, and they tend to deflect to the right.

The same ex-Lord Stansgate once said socialism hadn't worked, because it had never been tried. Insofar as it has always been pushed off-course for reasons too involved to go into on here (or maybe not?), and regardless of the fashion for decategorising the terms left, centre and right, I remain someone of the left, inasmuch as, to me, the same problems referred to by Marx and Engels still pertain, albeit in updated forms: namely a class society in which one class owns the bulk of the means of production and another class sells its labour power to produce the wealth in hope and expectation of a return forits labour power. A system in which the former group benefits inordinately by at the expense of the latter is inherently unstable and wasteful and, we now know, environmentally unsustainable. It needs to be replaced by one which involves the talents and thus-far unrealized potential of most; one which is planned bottom up, in which those put in charge are accountable and recallable by democratic vote, and only paid extra for their time acquiring necessary skills. Everyone would feel involved, "manufactured" envy would be a thing of the past, as those directly involved in creating the wealth would see those giving their leadership qualities as doing so out of genuine self-interest, because what goes around, comes around.

S-A

[vinteuil]

the former Lord Stansgate .

If you insist on referring to Wedgbenn of Mintech by his former title, praps it wd be better to specify Viscount Stansgate -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount_Stansgate

[Serial_Apologist]

If you insist on referring to Wedgbenn of Mintech by his former title, praps it wd be better to specify Viscount Stansgate -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount_Stansgate

[Mandryka]

Similar to my analogy with water spiralling anticlockwise down the average pluughole in the northern hemisphere: drop most people into an ideological vacuum, and they tend to deflect to the right.

The same ex-Lord Stansgate once said socialism hadn't worked, because it had never been tried. Insofar as it has always been pushed off-course for reasons too involved to go into on here (or maybe not?), and regardless of the fashion for decategorising the terms left, centre and right, I remain someone of the left, inasmuch as, to me, the same problems referred to by Marx and Engels still pertain, albeit in updated forms: namely a class society in which one class owns the bulk of the means of production and another class sells its labour power to produce the wealth in hope and expectation of a return forits labour power. A system in which the former group benefits inordinately by at the expense of the latter is inherently unstable and wasteful and, we now know, environmentally unsustainable. It needs to be replaced by one which involves the talents and thus-far unrealized potential of most; one which is planned bottom up, in which those put in charge are accountable and recallable by democratic vote, and only paid extra for their time acquiring necessary skills. Everyone would feel involved, "manufactured" envy would be a thing of the past, as those directly involved in creating the wealth would see those giving their leadership qualities as doing so out of genuine self-interest, because what goes around, comes around.

S-A

Well, I would not describe myself as someone on the left (though nor would I necessarily describe myself as someone on the right) and I think the system you describe sounds admirable.

I also think it sounds impossibly utopian.

Study of history would seem to suggest that humankind cannot be so rationally ordered: we should aim for fairness and as much equality as possible, but our basic nature militates against those things. It really is a case of making the lion lie down with the lamb.

Whether socialism has ever been tried or not is a good point for debate: I would suggest that at various points in this country's history, it has been attempted but those in charge (nominally left wing leaders) have got cold feet about it - probably because they sensed themselves that it wouldn't work.

There really is only so much you can blame on the machinations of big business.

[Chris Newman]

A wise old man (not Viscount Stansgate) once told me that socialism never works because those elected to be in charge always want to live the lives of capitalists whilst forcing the masses to live the lives of peasants. Glib it may be but it certainly sums up the thought that socialism has never been tried.

[Lateralthinking1]

I have never agreed with everything Tony Benn has said. However, I like him. Along with having a few principles, he has arguably been worth hearing because of his background.

Eh?

I have a feeling that people at the top with true feeling possibly have to be loaded, even if the majority in that category are quite the opposite. Harold M would be one example. I was also taken by the recent comments of Warren Buffett:

Buffett recently raised hackles when he penned an op-ed claiming that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, suggesting that "it's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."

Oh, and here's another factor. They tend to be ancient.

[MrGongGong]

Similar to my analogy with water spiralling anticlockwise down the average pluughole in the northern hemisphere: drop most people into an ideological vacuum, and they tend to deflect to the right.

Except that the idea that water does that is an urban myth !
maybe the idea that most people only care about themselves and should grab as much as they can as quickly as they can is one as well ?
it would make the world a much better place

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, I would not describe myself as someone on the left (though nor would I necessarily describe myself as someone on the right) and I think the system you describe sounds admirable.

I also think it sounds impossibly utopian.

Study of history would seem to suggest that humankind cannot be so rationally ordered: we should aim for fairness and as much equality as possible, but our basic nature militates against those things. It really is a case of making the lion lie down with the lamb.

Whether socialism has ever been tried or not is a good point for debate: I would suggest that at various points in this country's history, it has been attempted but those in charge (nominally left wing leaders) have got cold feet about it - probably because they sensed themselves that it wouldn't work.

There really is only so much you can blame on the machinations of big business.

Without for now going into possible reasons and lessons the left still hasn't, imv, learned from Stalinism, Fabian top-downism etc., there are instances aplenty when peoples have been united, regardless of class interests; but this has always been in relation to some enemy: real in the case of Nazi Germany, ideological in the case of Maggie Thatcher's "enemy within". Having central control over the productive apparatus enabled the Stalinist bureaucracy to turn the Soviet economy to armaments production during WW2 with a speed which would have been impeded had that economy been under private ownership. And for all its inefficiencies and deficiences, central planning was carried out with remarkable success in this country during that same period. Notwithstanding the awfulness of conditions and suffering, there are octogenarians and nonagenarians who still look back to that time of national unity with extraordinary wistfulness.

Sooner or later, given the perils that face the ecosystem, the idea of a common enemy will have to be re-instilled in the general population; and if that common enemy is the unbalancing of the natural order caused by ourselves (in general terms), I would of course prefer that the unification needed to tackle its dangers was carried out under a less inequitable system than the one we have now; I happen to think it would thus be made easier, too.

[ahinton]

Good Morning, ahinton!

Right (or Left!) ... I've just re-read your admirably concise post and I'm ashamed to confirm that I can think of no other plausible interpretation of it from what you actually did write.

You appeared to make two points:

a) That you hoped I wasn't referring to you when I rather unkindly referred to 'unthinking politically-correct propagandist leftist clap-trap' ... you somewhat uncharacteristically omitted the last phrase!

b) That you wished clarification that my perceived 'implication' did not indicate that I believed that 'unthinking politically-correct propagandist clap-trap' was confined to those on the Left.

I responded to both your questions ... maybe not quite the way you expected, but in the manner I thought somewhat appropriate at the time.

Then I am unable to help you here.

The fact that you begin what passes for your argument by stating your evident belief that I "appeared [my italics] to make two points" alone suggests your apparent uncertainty as to what was being expressed therein but, given that your response seems to have been made on that basis, let's nevertheless examine it in terms of what it may seek to represent.

As to a), I did not "hope that you were not referring to me"; indeed, I did not even mention you specifically and I would not be interested in what you personally thought unless you had clearly and unequivocally directed your views, comments and responses at me and at no one else. I left out your last phrase simply because it was not germane to the point that I was making at the time.

As to b), I neither wished for nor expected such clarification from you, since I was not referring specifically to you in mentioning what I did but making a rather more generalised comment about those who might seek to associate "unthinking politically correct propagandism" (the clap-trap reference is yours and yours alone and you've already clarified that I omitted mention thereof) with "those on the Left".

Since I do not belong to either Left or Right and since neither persuasion would have welcome me into their presence if they had any sense, my remarks stand, whereas yours, of whose content (since you mention it) I had no particular advance expectations one way or the other, seem by the same token to fall.

I wouldn't worry about it, though - and, whilst we're about it, I'll take the liberty to accept your description of my post as "admirably concise" as a compliment, irrespective of whether or not it might have been meant as such.

Dear me, scotty - ONE nation divided by a common language?(!)...

[Serial_Apologist]

Except that the idea that water does that is an urban myth !
maybe the idea that most people only care about themselves and should grab as much as they can as quickly as they can is one as well ?
it would make the world a much better place

Working class people have a long historical memory of insecurity, and of making the most when the sun shines, so we shouldn't be too surprised!

[Lateralthinking1]

From The Independent interview with Ed Balls:

Q: You said recently you wanted to cook George a 14-hour pulled pork barbecue?

I was asked what would I cook for George Osborne. I would want to cook him something he would really like. If he thought it was good, then that would be something I would like. So I thought to myself what is the most, given he’s a bit of an Americanophile, what is the most American thing I could cook him? That’s why I picked it.

Q: Something about that captures the imagination – it’s not antagonistic – there is a mutual respect, almost a bromance?

No. The difference between George Osborne and David Cameron is that regularly over the last six or seven years when George and I bump into each other we would have a conversation in a friendly way. George Osborne has an intellectual and political self-confidence which means he can get on with people who are Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem and I would like to think I am the same.

Q: So you’ll be sending him a Christmas card?

Designed by Lewis [a boy in his constituency who won a competition]. Definitely. I will be Father Christmas for the seventh year running at the House of Commons annual Christmas party for children. George’s partner is also co-host. So it’s all in the family.

[teamsaint]

From The Independent interview with Ed Balls:

Q: You said recently you wanted to cook George a 14-hour pulled pork barbecue?

I was asked what would I cook for George Osborne. I would want to cook him something he would really like. If he thought it was good, then that would be something I would like. So I thought to myself what is the most, given he’s a bit of an Americanophile, what is the most American thing I could cook him? That’s why I picked it.

Q: Something about that that captures the imagination – it’s not antagonistic – there is a mutual respect, almost a bromance?

No. The difference between George Osborne and David Cameron is that regularly over the last six or seven years when George and I bump into each other we would have a conversation in a friendly way. George Osborne has an intellectual and political self-confidence which means he can get on with people who are Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem and I would like to think I am the same.

Q: So you’ll be sending him a Christmas card?

Designed by Lewis [a boy in his constituency who won a competition]. Definitely. I will be Father Christmas for the seventh year running at the House of Commons annual Christmas party for children. George’s partner is also co-host. So it’s all in the family.

well this cosy pen picture should sure cheer up the folks on the dole queues and the picket lines !!

[Lateralthinking1]

There have been a lot of analogies recently. I suppose they feel like a safe haven. Don't you think though that the major parties seem like Premiership football teams in the way that they have become increasingly remote financially? There has been absolutely no difference in my drifting away from both politics and football following a few decades of being staunch.

I came to realise that the real competition had shifted so that it was not between the players at all. The players had become opponents of the supporters. The half way line is actually on the boundary and policed and whatever the allegiances passed down through families, those involved are not "we" at all.