Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog
The twin anniversaries of 1968 and 2003 remind us that the story of the left is littered with utopian failures
It is a quirk of political history that the fifth anniversary of the outbreak of the Iraq War and the 40th anniversary of the Grosvenor Square anti-Vietnam demonstrations occurred within days of each other this March. I don't know which is the more depressing to observe: the baby boomers who took us to war in Iraq wriggling to justify their actions, or their contemporaries, preening themselves as they reminisce about the student revolutions of 1968.
Either way, the two anniversaries are fatefully interwoven in a way that obscures a genuine understanding of either event. There is little doubt that the organisers of the Stop the War movement see themselves as the heirs of those who demonstrated against US intervention in south-east Asia four decades ago. It is no coincidence that Andrew Burgin, a prominent member of the British anti-war movement, is now devoting himself to organising the "1968 and All That" celebrations to mark this year's anniversary. Nor should it really surprise anyone that a National Union of Students president during the late Sixties, Jack Straw, ended up as the foreign secretary who took us to war. For the militant left, his track record of treachery is a long one. When Essex University students dared to shout down a group of visiting MPs in April 1968, Straw issued a statement of pure charmlessness saying that their actions were "intolerable and inexcusable - I utterly condemn this". He may have drawn the attention of MI5, but Straw was never a radical. His fogeyish attitude to his fellow students' rebellion was entirely characteristic.
As these two anniversaries continue to generate considerable airtime and newsprint (we have the anniversaries of the May 1968 "events" and the end of the Iraq War to come, remember), it is somehow fitting that Straw is there to represent the government view. The Justice Secretary's woeful responses to John Humphrys's questions about the war on the Today programme recently demonstrated how utterly stripped of principle Labour's approach to the war has become. Which was worse: Straw's refusal to answer the question about whether the war had made Iraq a better place, or his retreat into the excuse that no one could have reasonably predicted that there would be no weapons of mass destruction? And yet, on the other side of the baby-boomer divide, there is a similar refusal to answer a straight question. What do those who wish to follow in the footsteps of the soixante-huitards say to those who ask whether their preferred option was for Saddam Hussein to remain in power? Of course the honest answer, at least in the short term, is "yes". But fortunately for those of us who were sceptical about intervention, with Saddam removed we no longer have to face the implications of that answer. Some would say that a contained Saddam would have been better than al-Qaeda unleashed on Iraq. Well, perhaps, but it is hard to know how anyone could judge the relative scale of such horrors.
New Labour has always had a problem with history. The failure of its main players to grasp the importance of understanding the past has always been yoked to their desperation to establish a legacy for the future. This is as true of Gordon Brown as it is of Tony Blair. All opposition, internal and external, was to be consigned to "the dustbin of history", and yet an ignorance of the history of the Middle East and Afghan istan, and its power over the present, has been the undoing of this government. In turn, the consequences of these two failing foreign adventures have detracted from its claims to a historic legacy in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.
Writing in 1992, the year Labour slumped to its fourth successive election defeat, the cultural critic Greil Marcus bemoaned the growing fashion for the phrase "the dustbin of history". In a brilliant essay in the liberal American journal Common Knowledge, entitled "The Dustbin of History in a World Made Fresh", Marcus quoted Henri Weber, a student at the Sorbonne in 1968. "It was fantastic," said Weber. "Everything we did immediately belonged to history." Marcus observed: "No - everything you did was immediately written out of history. Now your words sound childish." Marcus's essay still bears rereading in the context of present discussions of 1968 now that it is itself a 16-year-old historical document. "It is an embarrassment, listening to these stories and these cries, these utopian cheers and laments because the utopian is measured always by its failure . . ."
Marcus was writing these words not as a right-wing critic of the 1968 movement, but as a baby boomer whose own politics were forged by the student revolutions. Yet his observations, even in 1992, were stripped of the sentimentality so often associated with accounts of this period.
The left in Britain has long been seduced by the romance of 1968. Whereas leaders of the movement in France such as Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Bernard Kouchner entered mainstream politics, the equivalent figures in Britain preferred to enter the media, leaving this territory to the likes of Jack Straw. How different would it have been if Tariq Ali had followed his destiny and become a politician?
A bitter maxim
Instead, the "leader" of the Grosvenor Square demonstrations is reduced to writing about his personal disappointment and the betrayal of the cause on every five-year anniversary. His conclusions in the Guardian this month were particularly bleak: "Some, who once dreamed of a better future, have simply given up. Others espouse a bitter maxim: unless you relearn you won't earn . . . Renegades occupy posts in every west European government defending exploitation, wars, state terror and neocolonial occupations; others now retired from the academy specialise in producing reactionary dross on the blogosphere, displaying the same zeal with which they once excoriated factional rivals on the far left."
Ali can't even bring himself to mention the name of Bernard Kouchner, who led the strike committee of the faculty of medicine at the Sorbonne in Paris in 1968, but now sits in the right-wing government of François Fillon as foreign minister.
The twin anniversaries of 1968 and 2003 remind us that the history of the left is littered with utopian failures. New Labour was the photographic negative of 1968: socialism stripped of any revolutionary content. But still people invested it with their hopes, and its failure brings its own disappointments. The failure of its only vestige of utopian politics, the concept of "humanitarian intervention", will have far greater consequences than the collapse of the student revolutions.
In this month of anniversaries it is only proper that we should receive a visit from the great nemesis of the French left, Nicolas Sarkozy, whose election as president delivered the final blow to the spirit of '68. Speaking during the campaign he said: "In this election, it is a question of whether the heritage of May '68 should be perpetuated or if it should be liquidated once and for all." Gordon Brown's summit with Sarkozy will include discussions on giving France one of the top jobs at Nato in return for sending 1,200 troops to Afghanistan, a deal to build a Franco-British aircraft carrier and plans to bring in French expertise to build a new generation of British nuclear power stations.
What a way to mark an anniversary.
Post this article to
68 comments from readers
-
knave
27 March 2008 at 12:04 Martin what did you expect from 1968 generation.
They were "middle class " idealists who had no support from many of us in the working classes.
Most of them are now working for Thatcherite or neo con think tanks or writing crusty articles for the Mail, Observer or the Standard
It was not them that stopped Britsish soldiers entering Vietnam but the "hated" Wilson. In my view the only British PM in 60 years who had the courage to say no to the US.
What the left should be looking at is ways of helping all achieve their goals in life.
To certain extent Blair / Brown tried to do this at a UK level.
In the nineties they did pump money into public services after years of Tory neglect. Lets be honest most of the left wanted that to occur.
Now we have Tory Nick and yourself crying the Thatcherite mantra of over spending Labour governments.
To a certain extent they have tried to make public services accountable. As a school governor I can vouch for that.
Also Martin I have changed my opinion about your principles and I feel you care but we never get any ideas from you on how to remedy situations. Just sniping and point scoring
-
redharry
27 March 2008 at 13:22 'How different would it have been if Tariq Ali had followed his destiny and become a politician?' He did try, but was barred from joining the Labour Party by the Stalinist Max Morris. Also, it was De Gaulle who defeated the left - and in 1968. Do your homework Martin.
Besides, why is it worse for Ali to have remained true to his principles and be disappointed rather than to have sold out and become a rich and powerful warmonger for New Labour?
You use the classic neo-con line asking opponents of the war, 'whether their preferred option was for Saddam Hussein to remain in power?' Our preferred option was for hundreds of thousands -or millions -of innocent people not to lose their homes, their limbs or their lives - which was the consequence of the US army unleashed on Iraq. Don't put words used by the prowar camp into our mouths, we have our own arguments and questions. you can't answer them, so you try to recast the debate on your own terms.
As for the opportunist Kouchner, who encouraged the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo, a better insight can be read here
http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone06042007.html
As for that excuse for imperialism, "humanitarian intervention", how naive can you be to believe that con-trick to be 'utopian' when the only people to benefit are the arms manufacturers?
I really don't know what this article is about, other than to bash the antiwar left, in 1968 and in 2003, for being correct on both occasions.
-
taghioff.info
28 March 2008 at 03:09 The difficulties the left now face are very much due to an international division of labor. Knave illustrates this when he accuses the rebels of '68 of not being working class.
But as a school governor, can Knave consider himself working class when compared to say a Bangladeshi factory worker on 40 pence a day?
Yet the rise of global trade has established economic relations between our lives and theirs. Hence a war with Iraq dirven by economic objectives, and hence a sense of us all having sold out to some extent: It is written into the fabric of our societies.
The sense of the end of history is actually a symptom of political stasis. Bearing in mind that Hegel proposed the Prussian state as the ultimate political form before declaring the end of history, now we hear Fukuyama echoing this idea, just before we realised that global warming meant change whether we like it or not.
The political stasis is that our political-economy is global, and yet we vote at a scale that his little control of the global. We do not vote on trade agreements, on international treaties, on structural adjustment programs, or on decisions to go to war for that matter. So we feel that we have no control over our world (which is true in a way) and that it is an economic machine run out of our control.
But this is a lie. The current arrangement reflects a set of political choices to limit the extent of democracy. The US, postwar, worked hard to make sure that economic institutions took precedence over democratic institutions like the UN. The current international fashion for privatisation, or PPP< driven mostly by thought-work carried out in Washington also acts to limit democratic control over basic services and access to natural resources.
The Iraq war follows a similar pattern - Formal Democracy yes, but is that democratic control extended to crucial natural resources like oil? Not likely. Is Iraq allowed to have public water utilities like those in the US? No way.
The lessons of history in Iraq are that Saddam was a US product in the first place. Tariq Ali is very clear on that point. The lack of left-wing progressives in the Middle East is due, in no small part, to the CIA funding and supporting their systematic extermination, under people like Saddam, in order to prevent any social movement that might claim the oil for the general good.
Tariq is very entertaining when asked on the links between South America and the MIddle East. Chavez appeared on Al Jazeera for an hour, and the station got more calls than for any other guest that year. What most of them said was "whyd odn't we have a Chavez in the Middle East?"
What is the point of all this? Firstly there is a lot more in the way of left-wing and humanistic sentiment out there than we would be led to believe. The politics looks hopeless from within the rich economies because we are rich and powerful, and thus only look at our internal politics. Bout outside the Anglo-sphere people are very aware about the World Bank, the IMF about international trade, about the issues we do not get to vote on.
The left is alive and well, precisely because there are so many out there fighting for their survival. Just stop and think what climate change is going to do to marginal rainfed farmers in the tropics.
We may feel complacent, that history has ended, that we have reached the ultimate political form, but the world looks very different for them.
Until we have a democratic system that covers the whole world, and that takes the opinions of the vulnerable majority into account, then we have a world that is socially and ecologically unstable.
So there is plenty left to fight for, and in many ways Iraq is a distraction: It was after all a war for a fuel-source we need to stop using. The revolution, if that is the right word for social change, will be elsewhere, perhaps in the fields of Asia, perhaps in the corridors of international banking, wherever it is one thing is clear, we cannot go on like this.
-
knave
28 March 2008 at 11:27 Good post tag but the point I was making is that many of that generation who enjoyed the experience of challenging authority (usually a way of rebelling against their more conservative parents) have become what the use to despise.
They usually can be spotted when they the the tired analogy
"If your not a socialist when your young you haven't a heart
If you are one when you over 40 you haven't a brain".
This process is wide spread especially among the opinion forming class.
The process of leftist causes and beliefs for these individuals is just a right of passage.
To be discarded when they send their children to Westminster school
-
antileft
28 March 2008 at 13:53 "Chavez appeared on Al Jazeera for an hour, and the station got more calls than for any other guest that year. What most of them said was "whyd odn't we have a Chavez in the Middle East?""
Why would anyone want a populist idiot like Chavez? If that's what theyd do with democracy then of course theyre not educated enough for it. When you say he spoke for an hour on al jazeera- its the usual tripe. An hour of purile rambling with a fist shaking in the air, america this, america that... Blah blah blah. In one hour he says absolutely nothing.
"The left is alive and well, precisely because there are so many out there fighting for their survival."
Actually, the left is so very very finished that "left" now has a different meaning. It's gone from meaning Soviet-style communism to meaning economically right wing, socially liberal, at least in most important developed countries. Everything has moved to the right. Now that most people realise that communism doesnt work, there's no need for that entire chunk of the political spectrum. Brown vs Cameron is a logical result- two economically right wing leaders.
-
redtakesy
28 March 2008 at 15:59 Redharry: I don't think he's bashing the antiwar left (note: he uses the word "us" when talking about antiwar protesters). The Saddam Hussein thing is an inevitable choice of not going to war: the hundreds of thousands don't die from Iraqi bombs, but do face the extremely real risk of human rights abuses from their own regimes and the effects of sanctions.
As for Tariq Ali, I guess the point is that it's easy for him (unless he did try to join the Labour Party, in which case, maybe not). Politicians should not be immune to criticism, nor should they hide behind the excuses, but they have to deal with a real world of real politics, which is a nasty business and does involve change and compromise. New Labour has gone too far, no doubt about it. But look at Robin Cook, say: he opposed the war in stirring terms, and I think most people would agree he didn't do that for his own benefit, but in his belief in principle. But at the same time he OK'd the sale of Hawk jets to Indonesia. I'd say there's an argument for him trying to do right where he could, and also falling short. So where he made his way and tried to get make his points in a difficult world, Tariq Ali (as I said above, possibly not by choice) didn't, and so can sit on the sidelines and get paid to stay true tio his principles, while actually changing nothing.
I think this viewpoint comes from having study "Measure for Measure" in high school, where the characters are faced with this choice. I don't want to defend politicians too far - the point of view I suggest here assumes a certain level of honour on hte politician's part, soemthign which is definitely not a given - but to point out the limitations of the system in which they operate and suggest that writing a column about how rubbish everything is is easier than making and implementing the legislation to make things less rubbish in British politics.
-
harold53
28 March 2008 at 16:12 1968 is a reference point for significant world events in three sectors of the world economy - it wasn't just Western Europe, but also the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet tanks and the heroic Tet offensive which carried through until the US were kicked out of Vietnam. 1968 did not bring about a 'revolutionary left' based on the working class organisations, but an 'ultra-left' that still believes that Western Europe is the centre of world revolution. (or more precisely Britain).
As Redharry above states, it was DeGaulle who defeated the French left by elections, suggesting that the crisis in Western Europe was always about governmental strategy, not whether socialism was on the agenda.
Thatcherism was very much a radical adjustment of Western capitalism, ensuring that the economic framework for political discussion was grounded firmly on the neo-con international strategy.
Clearly Chavez is a challenge to that strategy because he is based on progressive principles, rather than the fundementalist reactionary social framework notorious in the Middle East. As was mentioned above, these reactionary forces were created along the border of the Soviet Union by CIA (including Al Quiada) but didn't fold after 1991. (USA didn't mind them murdering thousands before that date, including of course Saddam).
But if Martin Bright is looking for a strong left in Britain, he's come to the wrong country as Britain has historically been able to buy of flarge sections of the working class based on the wealth brought in from abroad - previously the Empire, then the economic domination of much of Africa and Asia.
Privatisation, for example, has not been so harmful to people in Britain, although new levels of energy prices from international cartels / monopolies might prove me wrong on that point. In the rest of the world, particularly where corrupt regimes have agreed to privatisation under IMF guidance, the situation is dire - places that had fresh water prior to privatisation now do not. The material basis for a left - indeed a radical left - exists there, rather than here.
On Tariq Ali - I ran in to him recently and can happily state that he is quite capable of making his contribution as ever. A bit greyer, but hasn't disappeared into right-wing social democracy like many of the era.
-
knave
28 March 2008 at 21:29 Antileft
You make some sound points but Chavez at least is trying to move capital from the rich / middle classes to the poor. Living in societies ruled by corrupt middle eastern oligarchs, he may appeal to the poor.
"Now that most people realise that communism doesnt work, there's no need for that entire chunk of the political spectrum. Brown vs Cameron is a logical result- two economically right wing leaders."
True but many of us from the methodist, trades union, old labour background didn't buy into communism at any point.
Many of our values can be found in the socialism of Bill Shankly
"The socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. It's the way I see football, the way I see life"
Sentimental . Yes.
Unworkable. Maybe
Idealistic. Why not ?
That is the goals for many us on the left.
We seem to be on Hegalian theme
We are the anti thesis to the Nick Cohen's and the rest of the opinion formers in the country who sneer at trades unions and old labour socialism.
-
antileft
29 March 2008 at 03:44 "Clearly Chavez is a challenge to that strategy because he is based on progressive principles, rather than the fundementalist reactionary social framework notorious in the Middle East."
Progressive principles my ass. The guy is a joke- it's getting harder and harder to even buy bread or milk in venezuela. At over 100 dollars a barrel of oil. Can you explain that to me? All Chavez is (along with the 49-year dictatorship of Fidel) is a warning to others that the hard left is a waste of time and should be forgotten.
-
taghioff.info
29 March 2008 at 07:50 @antileft
Chavez's and Castro's recors on literacy levels, infant mortality, life expectancy, poverty rates female literacy etc... are raither good, which is what contributes to him winning elections with very large mandates.
He did lose the plot in terms of wanting to become a very-long-term kinda leader, but Venezuelan democracy was strong enough to say no to that.
Are you sure that the rise of oil and food prices globally is due to Chavez? That seems like blaming him for the ills of the world. He is clearly not perfect, but compared to the Kleptocracies in much of the Middle East he isn't do so very badly either.
-
antileft
29 March 2008 at 08:15 "Are you sure that the rise of oil and food prices globally is due to Chavez?"
Erm no, the oil price is very very good for chavez, but food is not available in venezuela because hes ruined private industry. Venezuelas farms are finished because of price fixing, arbitrary land take-overs, and the way the state has generally done everything it can to destroy any production which isnt run by chavistas. This is why it's very hard now to buy bread and milk in the shops. And who cares that hes teaching old women how to read and write (the young were already very literate)? Why is he putting money into teaching 90 year old women how to read and write when he cant even produce milk? And all this when his main export is selling at 100 dollars a barrel!!! Amazing! Its also amazing that so many supposedly educated westerners could still think communism is a good idea, against all the evidence. This is why communism should be classed as a religion- it relies on faith rather than facts.
-
knave
29 March 2008 at 08:30 I have not read any reports that private industry in Venezuela is failing. Growth rates in the country are rasing higher than in the US.
I actually don't think Chavez is a communist. I must admi he talks to commies but so did many western leaders. De Gaulle had very good relationships with Russians.
I do have problem with his tendency to be a blowhard.
But many of his iniatives are trying to redistribute capital to the poor.
perhaps that is the purpose of the left.
I take your views on board. As a conservative you wish to keep the money in the hands of the upper middle classes and corporations. To yourself that is the correct status quo.
Which is fair enough.
-
antileft
29 March 2008 at 09:28 "I have not read any reports that private industry in Venezuela is failing. Growth rates in the country are rasing higher than in the US."
Well, then maybe you shouldnt spend so much time reading the new statesman. Growth is high (because of oil) but it's not helping- the money is being wasted, corruption is out of control, and dutch disease is around the corner. Also, inequality is massively going up-more about that later. There are countless examples of Chavistas taking over farms and private companies. A woman who owned a large amount of land near my father's house was recently invaded, they killed all her cattle with machetes and turned the land into a slum. No one does anything about it because they are "the people" and she was "the oligarch". Chavez is always praising these people for these acts and everyone in power makes it clear that this is the new order. This is the way it is everywhere in the country- land is now worthless because it's not respected, and the chavistas at the bottom carry out these acts with approval from the top. (Chavez supporters land is respected). From the bottom of this article (it's actually a blog but its from the economist and it's very accurate):
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10870071
"The government imposed price controls on basic foods and medicines several years ago, and failed to adjust them in line with cost increases. With inflation running at more than 20%, the predictable result is that the cheaper cuts of meat, along with chicken, milk, flour, cooking oil, black beans, eggs and a dozen other items are now in such short supply that fights sometimes break out when they are finally delivered."
I assure you it isnt just heresay- Ive spent a lot of time in the country, and private industry is really finished- and food is getting harder to come by.
As for him not being a communist- well, theyre never really full communists are they? The ideal is never attainable. He is, however, resolutely anti-private industry and pro the state, as well as pro castro. Although the laws arent 100 percent communist yet- the gyst is communist and from the ground- you can see communism has arrived.
"But many of his iniatives are trying to redistribute capital to the poor."
Trying, and failing. As has always been the case- when you illiminate private industry as Chavez is doing, you inevitably remove the middle class. When you enlarge the state, you create corruption, which the "oligarch" are best place to make the most of. They are the ones who benifit the most- our rich friends love him (but think he's crazy). Private industry is squeezed, so that the middle class (who are the future of the country) are either impoverished, or leave. This is what has happened- there are more beggars, prostitutes, big cars, big houses, and rich politicians than ever before, as you can see from the bbc here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6186990.stm
This was entirely predictable- and has happened in every communist country in history. You think castro and those around him have to sell things on the side to make ends meet? I doubt it. You think Mao went without food once in a while? No way. Sure, the propaganda says otherwise but let's not be naive. The people at the top get richer while the poor become dependent on the state and their wealth stagnates.
"As a conservative you wish to keep the money in the hands of the upper middle classes and corporations. To yourself that is the correct status quo."
Not at all! There's a left wing consensus that says that those who are pro the market are into inequality and corporations and against people- it isnt the case at all. We simply understand that in order to create wealth, you need private enterprise, and the best way to help the poor is to allow private industry to give them jobs. That's what happened in the west, and it's what's happening in China and India. It's private industry that is helping the people- not the state. The economic right is not simply "evil" (unless perhaps we re talking about the current republican party). They just dont believe that the state can solve the problems, or indeed lower inequality.
Here's an article about illiteracy too:
http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=...
-
antileft
29 March 2008 at 10:26 (And when I say "They just dont believe that the state can solve the problems, or indeed lower inequality", I mean the state alone)
-
redharry
30 March 2008 at 03:39 'Well, then maybe you shouldnt spend so much time reading the new statesman'
then why are you posting here - go back to little green footballs
-
antileft
30 March 2008 at 07:11 "then why are you posting here - go back to little green footballs"
Well, what an intellectual response to my page of writing, with added statistics!!! No wonder the left is dead. Here's my response to your childish, purile question- Im posting here because I like to get all sides of the story. I read and debate with people on the right and on the left. Maybe you should try it? You might not have such a one-sided view of the world, and such a lack of knowledge of Venezuela's politics, hmm? You might also reach a level of intellectual sophistication where you can actually debate what Im saying instead of just posting moronic one-liners.
-
knave
30 March 2008 at 07:57 Antileft i feel a lot of anger.
Using your cow analogy it must be difficult that your pet peasant isn't milking it but maybe you and your mates could learn to.
As for left is dead . Well I don't see drip down moneterism of mini Thatcherites like your self has been a success.
Social democratic countries are usually healthy comapred to the unhappy US and UK liberal economies.
-
antileft
30 March 2008 at 09:26 Right, so you "feel a lot of anger", and yet you havent been able to debate any of the points I made above.
"Well I don't see drip down moneterism of mini Thatcherites like your self has been a success."
And yet you seem to have missed out why... Well, it's been a success in that the world has, over the last 50 years, drifted further and further to the right. Britain hasnt moved back to pre-thatcher policies, nor do the people seem to want it. Why you dont think it's a success isnt explained (perhaps because that might stir up an unwinnable debate), except for the usual bland
"Social democratic countries are usually healthy comapred to the unhappy US and UK liberal economies."
If you mean healthy as in physically healthy (it's not exactly clear...), well it's debateable. Japan has the highest life expectancy, they spend the least out of rich countries on health, and they have an entirely private healthcare system. And the idea that you couldnt have the french system in America just because it isnt compatible with their business environment is a bit silly.
If, however, you simply mean "happy", well, how are you supposed to rate that? As anyone who has researched this will openly admit, some cultures find it easier to admit to being happy than others- and there are one hell of a lot of variables which have nothing to do with the system.
Here's a way to proove which makes people happier- the fact that the world is moving steadily to the economic right without slipping back suggests that it's what people want.
-
antileft
30 March 2008 at 10:48 "Using your cow analogy it must be difficult that your pet peasant isn't milking it but maybe you and your mates could learn to."
And what cow analogy are you talking about anyway?! What kind of unintelligent response is this to a page of writing including statistics, full of proof that your views are wrong? Dear oh dear, not very good at this debating lark are you?
-
harold53
30 March 2008 at 17:51 antileft - states one fact that is undeniable - the world is moving to the economic right. Is this a good thing? Well if you are rich, of course it is. If you consider the impact on the poor where impoverishment has increased this is the real effect of neo-liberalism and privatisation. If you analyse any country where the IMF has intervened, you will see that there will have been economic 'growth' but not growth that benefitted the majority of the population - the price of IMF help was always privatisation of education, water and other utilities, making things inaccesible to many if not the majority.
Antileft refers to Chavez as a joke. Well, given that he has established a Latin American Bank that is able to offset the effect of the World Bank in the area which has been beneficial to the region; the trade links with Bolivia aren't bad. Some joke that education and health has progressed spectacularly unde rChavez - people on the Barrios that didn't even exist before statistically under the old regime, now have access to university. Not bad for a fool.
Food shortages? I believe there was a serious problem with milk because of deliberate holding back by farmers - so much for the free market! I'm not in favour of nationalising farms as such, but if state run food production is the only option, then so be it.
-
knave
30 March 2008 at 21:10 Anti left you think a debate is about stating meaningless stats that come from unreliable subjective sources.
Read what the great conservative Disreali say about stats.
Ideas are needed boy.
Positive ones not just negative warbling from a little rich boy who feels his toys are been taking away from him.
Those days when you could beat the peasants eh lad.
-
knave
30 March 2008 at 21:15 Also only one government reduced government spending in real terms. It wasn't Thatcher. It was the hated Callaghan government.
-
knave
30 March 2008 at 21:22 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6360517.stm
Well the kids don't seem very happy in your brave new antileft world
-
writeon
30 March 2008 at 21:45 I think there's a degree of dogmatism and sectarianism in some of the posts here which is not only tiresome and irritating, but not particularly enlightening either. Is this the fault of this kind of debate forum/structure, or do arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand?
What was the 'true' heritage of '68? I think it may well have been the Thatcherite counter-revolution, dragging the country to the right to a degree that would never, ever, be tolerated if a leftist government was in political power. Can anyone really believe that a government as far to the left as Thatcher was to the right could happen?
What's also particularly annoying is the idea that many people have that Thatcher was wildly popular and had a clear mandate for her destructive policies from the electorate. This is simply untrue, wildly exaggerated, a perversion of the facts.
I've met the 'myth' about Thatcher's popularity all over the world and it always and still frustrates me that people genuinely think the woman had massive electoral support.
When one explains the bizarre nature of the British electoral system to foreigners, they normally recoil in amazment and something close to incredulity, even Americans, who also have a very odd form of democracy. Most people's reaction is, 'But that's absurd, that's not democratic at all!' and they are right.
I think it's important to remember how few actual votes Thatcher and her party received even at the height of her 'popularity'. The Conservatives never even got close to a majority of votes caste. Labour and the Liberals together always beat the Conservatives by what could be described as a 'landslide'. Yet because of the nature of the British electoral system as party with minority support was returned again and again with a massive majority in Parliament, a substantial majority which allowed them to push through very unpopular policies with semi-dictatorial power.
Given so much power to a group of dogmatic, ideological, vindictive, rightists like Thatcher and her followers was a disaster. I am still amazed by people who regard Thatcherism as a great success story. How is this possible? Don't people have eyes and brains anymore?
Thatcherism destroyed not only politics in the UK, but so much of the infrastructure of society, millions of useful jobs, and nuked social cohesion. For years this was disguised by the class-war of mass unemployment and privitization, fueled by the once in lifetime windfall of North Sea oil and gas.
Whilst Thatcherism was of definite, but temporary, material benefit for very many in the ruling elite, it's arguable that her simplistic and simply wrong-headed, economic and social policies, seen in a wider and longer perspective, any postive effect on British society at all. New Labour has spent over a decade just trying to mitigate the worst and most extreme effects of Thactherism, whilst lacking the courage and will to dismantle her ghastly legacy, the inevitable consequences of which we are watching unraval as we speak.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
30 March 2008 at 22:06 writeon: It's like dealing with a fanatical cult.
-
taghioff.info
31 March 2008 at 05:37 @antileft
"Here's a way to prove which makes people happier- the fact that the world is moving steadily to the economic right without slipping back suggests that it's what people want."
Well, actually we began discussing Venezuela, which is part of a movement against these policies in South America. The South Americans should now about these policies. They were first tried out in Chile under Pinochet, hardly a democratic and consensual beginning.
The most recent South American country to embrace them fully was Argentina. It wrecked the economy so badly that they now ignore IMF and World Bank as much as they can.
So the continent with the longest experience of these right wing economic fantasies is rejecting them utterly, With the longest experience of these policies, they probably show us the future.
Naomi Kline has documented (in Shock Doctrine) that these policies have not been chosen, but have always been introduced coercively. Chile is just the first in a long line of such instances.
Public opinion polls worldwide show that populations prefer mixed economies, some form of social democracy tends to be favored.
This is not surprising, since well-developed mixed economies (i.e. Europe mainly, but Canada, Austalia, New Zealand and to an extent Japan also) tend not only to have much better social statistics, they provide public services in a more economically efficient basis (the UK spends half of what the US does per capita on healthcare for broadly similar results) and also enjoy better economic performance by many indicators (Europe exports more hi-tech manufactureds, is more productive and has a higher GDP then the US.)
What the US excels at is military spending and exporting military hardware. And it is this last piece of evidence that underlines how the economically right-wing models it has pushed have not been chosen, but rather have been violently imposed.
If you doubt this, go and read Harvey's a history of neo-liberalism, or John Perkin's Confessions of an Economic Hitman, as well as Klein's Shock Doctrine.
-
antileft
31 March 2008 at 06:14 "Can anyone really believe that a government as far to the left as Thatcher was to the right could happen?"
Oh what a silly comment!!! Thatcher almost didnt succeed. If there had been enough people in the country supporting the left then it could have happened. But the public was sick of that crap. Why should they fund dirty, unproductive coal mines which lose money every year?
"I am still amazed by people who regard Thatcherism as a great success story. How is this possible?"
Have you ever thought that perhaps theyre actually correct? Afterall, they are the majority by a long way- very few people actually want to go back to where it was before. None of the mainstream parties even bother to talk about reversing it. Very few people want to go back to being paid less than other rich countries, and the constant strikes and inefficient statist companies. Maybe youre wrong, eh?
"What's also particularly annoying is the idea that many people have that Thatcher was wildly popular and had a clear mandate for her destructive policies from the electorate. This is simply untrue, wildly exaggerated, a perversion of the facts."
Right. Well, Ill tell you what- why dont you destroy this perversion of the facts by showing some kind of proof? You know- some statistics from a reliable source like the bbc (not new statesman-something that's hard to call biased). Cant do it? Didnt think so.
"They were first tried out in Chile under Pinochet, hardly a democratic and consensual beginning."
And yet chile now has the highest quality of life on the continent. Theyre paid far more than the others and have a higher growth rate even without many natural resources. As for
"Well, actually we began discussing Venezuela, which is part of a movement against these policies in South America."
South America is the only place where parts are still moving to the left, and even there, it's looking remarkably fragile. Everywhere which counts is well and truely capitalist- the rich countries, china, india, brazil, russia.
This is really dumb:
"The most recent South American country to embrace them fully was Argentina. It wrecked the economy so badly that they now ignore IMF and World Bank as much as they can."
No, the reason Argentina is a mess is because of peron- he was a big speaking, heroic chavez type who believed in a big state, and expanded it as much as possible. He destroyed the economy. You certainly cant blame the economic right there!!!
"Public opinion polls worldwide show that populations prefer mixed economies"
And mixed is not what I have a problem with- as long as it's business-friendly. What I dislike is the hard left which seems to think that business is somehow anti-people. Which is just stupid.
Oh and knave- yes british kids arent very happy. As Ive already said there are plenty of other factors one has to consider- not least that culturally some people dont want to admit to being unhappy. Maybe british kids are more honest?! Seriously though, american conservatives are happier than american liberals (not because theyre richer because they arent)- probably because of religion. And the other countries on that list are all capitalist, so whats your point anyway? I dont see Cuba or North Korea on there. Not that they allow a serious collection of statistics anyway.
"Read what the great conservative Disreali say about stats. Ideas are needed boy."
What an idiot. If Disraeli has disagreed with one of my stats he would have had to try a lot harder to disprove them- for example by saying theyre from an unreliable source, or that theyre missing a vital fact. Shame youre not bright enough to pull this off.
"Some joke that education and health has progressed spectacularly unde rChavez"
Read the article about illiteracy, idiot. He doesnt even have real statistics. And again who cares about university when you cant even buy bread or milk?? At 100 dollars a barrel he bloody should be able to fund some universities. It's a shame they all have to be politicised like in Cuba. What a waste of time that is.
And here's the dumbest comment of them all:
"Food shortages? I believe there was a serious problem with milk because of deliberate holding back by farmers."
I can tell that not only have you not read my above posts, but you also have NO IDEA about the country. Its not just milk! It's all farm produce!!! You try and buy something you need in the country- its very hard now! Any explain to me this- if you were a farmer and it cost you one dollar to produce x amount of meat, and the government said "It is illegal to sell x amount of meat for more than 50 cents", what would you do? Youd get rid of what you have on the black market and stop production. Farm quotas- what a load of crap. You dont even know about this, do you? Read a bit about the country before you post here, idiot. The articles I left would be a good start.
-
writeon
31 March 2008 at 07:30 Antileft,
You are all the 'proof' one could ever need that arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand.
Maybe you are unaware of the juvenile tone you adopt which severely undermines the effectiveness of your arguments, it's just so offensive and irritating, one reels backwards instinctively and thinks, oh no, not that kid again!
You seem incredibly sure of yourself, but then all Trolls are like that I suppose. You also have a very unsophisticated grasp of statistics indeed. You seem to actually believe them. This is a big mistake. The first rule is to be sceptical of statisitcs and who provides them. The idea that numbers produced by the BBC, of all organizations, are somehow 'true' or 'objective' is absurd. Statistics porvided by governments and industry are even worse and notoriously unreliable. One could for example, just in passing, mention the unemployment and inflation rate numbers produced in the United States and the United Kingdom which substantial underestimates the 'true' levels of both inflantion and unemployment.
Or one could mention the US 'defence' budget which is roughy twice the published figure. Governments manipulate statistics in order to manufacture consent and support for their policies.
This seems like a pointless exercise, talking to you, as you clearly 'know' everything already and tower of the rest of us mortal intellects.
This scepticism about how statistics are presented, as opposed to what they really show or contain, is illustrated perfectly by the historical record relating to UK election results in the Thatcher period. One thing was the actual number of votes cast for the Conservatives, the way the results were presented and defined is another story completely.
Now, I just said that one should be sceptical about statistics and how they are manipulated and misrepresented, but the UK election results are simple to understand and verify. The facts do speak for themselves if one bothers to examine them. People cast their votes and other people count them and they are accurate to about 98%.
You will find if you examine the election results for the United Kingdom during the Thatcher era that what I said about the Conservative Party's electoral support, or lack of it, is accurate and true. I assumed everyone on this kind of site knew this. It's not even controversial, simply the truth. Thatcher always, time after time, had a majority of votes cast against her. They were a party with minority electoral support ruling with a massive parliamentary majority, not because they were that popular, but because the British electoral system is bizarre and deeply flawed and in many ways a parody of democracy.
-
knave
31 March 2008 at 07:51 Antileft
A lot of anger again and abuse. You want to control that son.
More subjective opinions backed up with no facts.
Even your Antileft name shows a young man rebeling against what you see as the consensus of the left.
Also anti left.
Anti a broad spectrum of views.
Anti George Orwell, anti Tom paine, anti liberty
In a way you mirror the individuals in the article above . You are so closed minded you cannot accept any view that doesn't fit into a division of people based on the seating arrangement of the 18C French goverment.
You probably had a liberal parent or grandparent that you are rebelling against.
You are Reagan boomer.
As for praising dictators like Pinochet shows that you have shown a complete distain for the democratic process and human rights.
-
antileft
31 March 2008 at 07:59 Cant you see the problem?! If I post statistics you cant just say "statistics dont count"!!! You have to say why this particular set of statistics dont count- because some statistics are fair and correct. Not all of them are part of "the evil right wing conspiracy" just because they contain numbers.
The nearest youve come here is absurd- you simply say that theyre from the bbc so they dont count. But the bbc is TOTALLY in the center- a fact that is forced by their mandate. The fact that you see them as being somehow right wing propaganda just shows how obscenely extreme your opinions are, and how far they are from any kind of reasonable mainstream public opinion. And when you compare for example the BBC to any kind of alternative from a communist country, the results are totally obvious. Honestly, youre like those idiots that criticise the first election of bush (which was a mess) and yet somehow feel the need to defend cuba's "elections".
"The idea that numbers produced by the BBC, of all organizations, are somehow 'true' or 'objective' is absurd."
Well, why dont you give me the name of any source which is more reliable and trustworthy? One that is less slanted in one way or the other??
"Or one could mention the US 'defence' budget which is roughy twice the published figure."
Look at this- a statistic which may or may not be true. And yet you havent said where you got it from, have you? Cant you see?! Youre quoting a statistic, but failing to give the source- far worse than when I gave the statistic and the source, with a link!!! Try giving sources and statistics that you consider to be reliable instead of simply something you heard.
On the subject of thatcher- you didnt answer my question. Try again:
"Why should the british public fund dirty, unproductive coal mines which lose money every year?"
And here's a new one:
If the majority of British public opinion want to revearse thatcher's legacy, why dont any of the three mainstream political parties capitalise on this by at least paying lipservice to revearsing them? Both Blair and Brown are fairly pro-thatcher, and the liberal democrats never say anything particularly negative about her. Explain that one.
-
antileft
31 March 2008 at 08:04 "More subjective opinions backed up with no facts."
And where are your facts? All youve done is try to insult me by pathetically talking about my pseudonym and my family. Hardly stinging, is it?
As for facts, I quoted a lot of them up the top of the page, and all Ive had in return is "Oh but statistics dont count! Its ideas that count!" What a load of purile tripe. No wonder the left is declining.
"As for praising dictators like Pinochet shows that you have shown a complete distain for the democratic process and human rights."
Where did I praise pinochet, idiot? I praised the capitalist system, not the dictator who imposed it. There's a difference. Which should be obvious as Im so critical of dictators such as castro, unlike some here, who seem to think that dictatorship is ok when it's on your side.
-
antileft
31 March 2008 at 08:22 It's amazing that of the last two posters who disagree with me- neither of them has mentioned venezuela, even though that is what Ive been talking about the most. I guess they realise Im right about that then.
-
knave
31 March 2008 at 10:24 Full of anger lad,
There is a site on anger management on the hated BBC.
Calling anybody who disagrees with you an idiot. shows deep insecurity.
Also if you read the first post i was critical of communism. Obviously you too busy chewing a post with hate.
Cant you see the problem?! If I post statistics you cant just say "statistics dont count"!!!
Why not read Poppers falsification theory about challenging any certainity
"You have to say why this particular set of statistics dont count- because some statistics are fair and correct. Not all of them are part of "the evil right wing conspiracy" just because they contain numbers."
No one is saying that but they are subjective not objective because they are from a subjective source
"The nearest youve come here is absurd- you simply say that theyre from the bbc so they dont count. But the bbc is TOTALLY in the center- a fact that is forced by their mandate."
Oh the BBC card. Get the straight jacket
"The fact that you see them as being somehow right wing propaganda just shows how obscenely extreme your opinions are, and how far they are from any kind of reasonable mainstream public opinion."
I don't think they are mainstream. people are now sophisticated in their views. people are are more specialised in what they like or hate in politics. For instance I feel Thatcher was correct in some of her union law, not all. In fact Barbara Castle put forward the same ideas in her in place of strife legislation.
But public utilites would have been to be charitable trusts that put money back to the consumer and could redistribute help for the poor. Instead we have privately run monopolies which push up inflation.
And when you compare for example the BBC to any kind of alternative from a communist country, the results are totally obvious.
Oh dear get the straight jackets again
Honestly, youre like those idiots that criticise the first election of bush (which was a mess) and yet somehow feel the need to defend cuba's "elections".
Whose defended Cuba and you don't think there wasn't something a little fishy about the the election results in Florida
"The idea that numbers produced by the BBC, of all organizations, are somehow 'true' or 'objective' is absurd."
Any organisation is subjective not objective
Well, why dont you give me the name of any source which is more reliable and trustworthy? One that is less slanted in one way or the other??
You could think for yourself
"Or one could mention the US 'defence' budget which is roughy twice the published figure."
OHHHHHHHHHH
Look at this- a statistic which may or may not be true. And yet you havent said where you got it from, have you? Cant you see?! Youre quoting a statistic, but failing to give the source- far worse than when I gave the statistic and the source, with a link!!! Try giving sources and statistics that you consider to be reliable instead of simply something you heard.
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
On the subject of thatcher- you didnt answer my question. Try again:
I just did
"Why should the british public fund dirty, unproductive coal mines which lose money every year?"
Whic we might now re open
And here's a new one:
If the majority of British public opinion want to revearse thatcher's legacy, why dont any of the three mainstream political parties capitalise on this by at least paying lipservice to revearsing them? Both Blair and Brown are fairly pro-thatcher, and the liberal democrats never say anything particularly negative about her. Explain that one.
As i said before Only one government has cut public spending in real terms and that was Callaghan. Thatcher never.
So the true moneterist was Sunny Jim.
Now calm down , take some prozac and post on a site where you can get youir predujices reinforced
-
antileft
31 March 2008 at 10:46 Oh knave what an amusing post!!! Straightjackets?! Isnt it great the way you can ignore a perfectly valid point just by making an amusing one-liner? I love the way by the end youre simply replying with "OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!" to my questions Very intellectual. You really tried here didnt you?! Is it embarrassing being unable to debate properly?
And look at this... Read what I said and what you said:
Me:
Honestly, youre like those idiots that criticise the first election of bush (which was a mess) and yet somehow feel the need to defend cuba's "elections".
You:
Whose defended Cuba and you don't think there wasn't something a little fishy about the the election results in Florida
As you can see from my comment "(which was a mess)" of course I think theyre fishy! Honestly, what a twit- you dont even bother to read things you quote, do you?! And I never said anyone was mentioning cuba- I was saying what the previous silly comment was similar to. Cant you see how illogical your thinking is?
And then I asked:
Well, why dont you give me the name of any source which is more reliable and trustworthy? One that is less slanted in one way or the other??
To which you weakly replied:
"You could think for yourself"
Well, I cant think of an example of a source more reliable and trustworthy, obviously-otherwise I wouldnt have asked, would I? And obviously, neither can you. Or can you? Here, try to answer the question again- maybe youll have better luck this time:
"Well, why dont you give me the name of any source which is more reliable and trustworthy? One that is less slanted in one way or the other??"
Go ahead, Im looking forward to another intellectual answer.
I love this by the way:
My question:
"Why should the british public fund dirty, unproductive coal mines which lose money every year?"
Youre answer:
"Whic we might now re open"
Oh might we?! Sure, that's likely! What on earth makes you think that that could ever happen?! Haha laughable.
And again, you havent answered my question, have you? Youve simply dodged it. Try again!
"If the majority of British public opinion want to revearse thatcher's legacy, why dont any of the three mainstream political parties capitalise on this by at least paying lipservice to revearsing them?"
Go ahead- Im waiting for your answers, again. But I have a feeling youre strugging, so Im not optimistic about getting anything useful out of it.
-
knave
31 March 2008 at 11:07 As you can see from my comment "(which was a mess)" of course I think theyre fishy! Honestly, what a twit- you dont even bother to read things you quote, do you?! And I never said anyone was mentioning cuba- I was saying what the previous silly comment was similar to.
What. Me no uneerstando
And then I asked:
Well, why dont you give me the name of any source which is more reliable and trustworthy? One that is less slanted in one way or the other??
To which you weakly replied:
"You could think for yourself"
Well you could. I know its novel for you. It is called independent thinking
You sound quite autisitic with your reliance on stats
Well, I cant think of an example of a source more reliable and trustworthy, obviously-otherwise I wouldnt have asked, would I? And obviously, neither can you. Or can you? Here, try to answer the question again- maybe youll have better luck this time:
"Well, why dont you give me the name of any source which is more reliable and trustworthy? One that is less slanted in one way or the other??"
There isn't one that is the point. All humans are subjective in their views. Therefore all sources are subjective. That is my point about Popper.
Go ahead, Im looking forward to another intellectual answer.
I love this by the way:
My question:
"Why should the british public fund dirty, unproductive coal mines which lose money every year?"
Youre answer:
"Whic we might now re open"
Oh might we?! Sure, that's likely! What on earth makes you think that that could ever happen?! Haha laughable.
Actually they might because of the high prices of natural gas from the corrupt mafia run Russian gas services
And again, you havent answered my question, have you? Youve simply dodged it. Try again!
"If the majority of British public opinion want to revearse thatcher's legacy, why dont any of the three mainstream political parties capitalise on this by at least paying lipservice to revearsing them?"
But that is the point Thatcher paid lip service to moneterism. She tried it for 6 months and gave it up. She was no different than any other UK or US leader, and that includes Reagan she spent more than she earned. Secretly most Brits like it that way.
Now sit down , calm down and try to think out of left and right dimension of thinking.
Just to hate something because it comes from a different political point view from your own shows a lack of empathy and deep thinking.
Now lets get over the name calling
I'm an idiot and I'm twit. Yes
Now do you feel better
-
antileft
31 March 2008 at 11:37 You sure are, knave! As is proved by your inability to answer questions about your opinions!
Lets look at some of those shall we?
"All humans are subjective in their views. Therefore all sources are subjective."
So, your opinion now is that no views are less subjective that others? Well then the BBC is a good place to quote from. Yup youre right- you are an idiot.
"What. Me no uneerstando"
indeed. Said it all. Back down to the monkey-like level of gibberish that I expect from you.
Here's an other interesting lack of logic:
Me:"Why should the british public fund dirty, unproductive coal mines which lose money every year?"
You:"Whic we might now re open"
Me:Oh might we?! Sure, that's likely! What on earth makes you think that that could ever happen?! Haha laughable.
You: Actually they might because of the high prices of natural gas from the corrupt mafia run Russian gas services
Look very carefully. See the problem with your logic? Question:
"Why should the british public fund dirty, unproductive coal mines which lose money every year?"
dirty, unproductive coal mines which lose money every year
which lose money every year
which lose money every year
See? Something you missed there. Theyre now economically viable and theyre not losing money every year. Let's try that question again, shall we?
Why should the british public fund dirty, unproductive coal mines WHICH LOSE MONEY EVERY YEAR (not the productive ones but the ones which lose money every year. I say twice so you dont miss this important part)?
Try again, idiot.
And another failure to answer my question:
"If the majority of British public opinion want to revearse thatcher's legacy, why dont any of the three mainstream political parties capitalise on this by at least paying lipservice to revearsing them (that's a typo, it should be *it*- the legacy- as in "why dont any of the three mainstream political parties capitalise on this by at least paying lipservice to revearsing it")?"
You:
But that is the point Thatcher paid lip service to moneterism. She tried it for 6 months and gave it up.
See the problem again? I wasnt talking about "moneterism", I was talking about "her policies". Let's look again, minus the typo:
"If the majority of British public opinion want to revearse THATCHER'S LEGACY (not moneterism), why dont any of the three mainstream political parties capitalise on this by at least paying lipservice to revearsing it?"
Try and answer that one again too. Do try to READ the questions first. Cmon, you can do it! There are two questions there that you should give another shot. Go on! Try it!
-
knave
31 March 2008 at 11:52 You sure are, knave! As is proved by your inability to answer questions about your opinions!
Lets look at some of those shall we?
"All humans are subjective in their views. Therefore all sources are subjective."
So, your opinion now is that no views are less subjective that others? Well then the BBC is a good place to quote from. Yup youre right- you are an idiot.
No that was an example of stats from a subjective point of view.
Let me explain boy
You are a subjective being due to genetic and environmental factors. We all are. The objective being is God, although reading the old testammant perhaps not. All sources are not written by the source pixie. they are written by other subjective humans.
"What. Me no uneerstando"
indeed. Said it all. Back down to the monkey-like level of gibberish that I expect from you.
I,m sorry fo the bad joke
Here's an other interesting lack of logic:
Me:"Why should the british public fund dirty, unproductive coal mines which lose money every year?"
You:"Whic we might now re open"
Me:Oh might we?! Sure, that's likely! What on earth makes you think that that could ever happen?! Haha laughable.
You: Actually they might because of the high prices of natural gas from the corrupt mafia run Russian gas services
Look very carefully. See the problem with your logic? Question:
"Why should the british public fund dirty, unproductive coal mines which lose money every year?"
dirty, unproductive coal mines which lose money every year
which lose money every year
which lose money every year
See? Something you missed there. Theyre now economically viable and theyre not losing money every year. Let's try that question again, shall we?
Why should the british public fund dirty, unproductive coal mines WHICH LOSE MONEY EVERY YEAR (not the productive ones but the ones which lose money every year. I say twice so you dont miss this important part)?
Try again, idiot.
Oh dear name calling again.
What i said there is interest in opening some mines because it works out economically to mine UK coal, a natural resource in our own country, than spend money on Russian gas and the economic blackmail that country can apply on the UK. that is been looked at. No by me by the way
And another failure to answer my question:
"If the majority of British public opinion want to revearse thatcher's legacy, why dont any of the three mainstream political parties capitalise on this by at least paying lipservice to revearsing them (that's a typo, it should be *it*- the legacy- as in "why dont any of the three mainstream political parties capitalise on this by at least paying lipservice to revearsing it")?"
You:
But that is the point Thatcher paid lip service to moneterism. She tried it for 6 months and gave it up.
See the problem again? I wasnt talking about "moneterism", I was talking about "her policies". Let's look again, minus the typo:
"If the majority of British public opinion want to revearse THATCHER'S LEGACY (not moneterism), why dont any of the three mainstream political parties capitalise on this by at least paying lipservice to revearsing it?"
Try and answer that one again too. Do try to READ the questions first. Cmon, you can do it! There are two questions there that you should give another shot. Go on! Try it!
With Thatcher you have to look at waht she did and what she said. The rhetoric was far more right wing than her actual actions.
For example she said we don't want to swamped by immigrants. yet immigration was as high in the eighties as the seventies.
Also as I said before most UK citizens would agree with her actions on the unions perhaps not some aspects of privatisation.
Now knowing you type of personality you require the last word. The aspergers and aggressive tendencies. Also it is rest for the other posters from our boring posts.
So post away open minded one. This is my last one on here
-
antileft
31 March 2008 at 12:03 Well thank god for that! Its not about "having the last word", its about getting the answers to my questions.
Which you still havent done. Again:
"With Thatcher you have to look at waht she did and what she said. The rhetoric was far more right wing than her actual actions."
Again- and I wasnt talking about what she said but what she did. Look- I did it for you in capitals, for gods sake!!!
"If the majority of British public opinion want to revearse THATCHER'S LEGACY (not moneterism, or what she said), why dont any of the three mainstream political parties capitalise on this by at least paying lipservice to revearsing it?"
And STILL youve failed to answer this question:
Why should the british public fund dirty, unproductive coal mines WHICH LOSE MONEY EVERY YEAR (not the productive ones but the ones which lose money every year. I say twice so you dont miss this important part)?
I know they may open productive ones. But Im asking about unproductive ones. Look above- pay attention to the capital letters! Honestly, you must be the second biggest moron here after Cybertiger.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
31 March 2008 at 15:30 antileft: Didn't Margaret Tatcher say that New Labour was her greatest legacy?
-
antileft
31 March 2008 at 15:38 I dont know- did she? It's probably true- she made the left so weak that the term "left" now means "economically right but slightly less right than the other right" in england. We now have two right wing parties. Great legacy, indeed.
-
writeon
31 March 2008 at 19:20 Antileft,
This kind of site really insn't the kind of place to get into a very detailed examination of statistical evidence and proof to back up ones arguments. It woul be very time consuming and rather tedious. This kind of forum isn't a kind of trial, it's more of a general discussion, where one makes comments. One isn't really defending a doctoral thesis before ones academic peers!
Also if one were to indulge in this kind of argument based on 'facts' and 'statistics' one could very easily fall into the trap of not being able to see the wood for the trees, that is one would quickly lose oneself in detail and forget the bigger picture.
I fail to see why you are so angry and insulting, calling people idiots and fools and so on... It's a very imature form of argument, don't you realize this? It seems very teenage to me, you seem to want to simply the complexities of the world to an unusual degree, given how contradictory human behaviour is.
Then for some bizarre reason you then pop some irrelevant question into the discussion and ask, nay demand that one answers you! This is odd behaviour. You also appear to have a severe problem respecting the rights of others to disagree with you. You overreact to a disturbing degree. You also seem to have a very inflated ego and a wildly exaggerated belief in you own abilities, knowledge and erudition. This too is rather disturbing.
Over and over again you rubbish the views and knowlegde of others, whilst you present your own abilities and views in an almost 'godlike' and infalable perspecitve. This too makes me feel somewhat uneasy about your overall mental state. These personality traits are potentially dangerous when taken to extremes and may become more pronounced if you refuse to acknowledge them. I'm worried about you and your overall mental health. I think you may want to consider whether it might not be prudent to seek professional help.
-
antileft
01 April 2008 at 06:14 Right I see writeon- you say that this isnt a debate but a place to put comments- and yet you keep coming back to debate. You tell me, yet again, that statistics just dont have any meaning, and yet, you failed to tell me where you got your statistic from about america's defense budget being double what is published. Well, sounds like your statistics are meaningless anyway.
You tell me first that Im childish because I call you a fool, and then you, erm, tell me I have mental health problems. Can you see the problem writeon? If Im childish for calling you stupid, doesnt that make you childish for calling me stupid? Whoops screwed up that one ay? Typical of the left- weak debating skills, lack of logic, and silly, purile comments which conveniently avoid the fact that you cant defend your arguments by answering a few questions about them.
Here's an answer to one of my questions, by the way, obvious as it is:
My question: "If the majority of British public opinion want to revearse thatcher's legacy, why dont any of the three mainstream political parties capitalise on this by at least paying lipservice to revearsing it?"
Answer: Because they like her legacy, as she did a good job.
That's the obvious fact, and the reason you couldnt answer it is because it shows your left wing views are out of date.
-
writeon
01 April 2008 at 13:20 Antileft,
I still don't see why you are so infernally angry, so full of bile and bitterness, so vitriolic, so intemperate and contemptuous of other people who have the timerty to disagree with you rash statements? Intellectual arrogance is often a clear sign of the opposite, that one is, in facet intellectually challenged. You stamp your feet and yell. You dispise others, yet this only makes you appear more foolish than you really are. This is not a particularly intelligent debating tactic.
Your questions/demands are also ill-conceived. You produce them with a flourish and mostly you answer you own questions yourself, pretending that these are really questions, they are not, they are statements. You continually try to box people in with your 'trick' questions so that most of the time the number of possible answers is severely limited. The assumptions in your 'questions', were one to accept them, are glaringly obvious, and no where near as smart as you seem to imagine. Once again a characteristic of overwhelming, close to pathelogical arrogance, conceit and an dangerously inflated sense of supperiority and hyper-egotism. This is unhealthy in the extreme, mostly for you. You are very immoderate in your language, to an alarming degree. Are you taking any form of medication? Have you sought professional help at any time with your emotional problems, obvious agression and difficulty in engaging with other people?
As to your question, where does one begin in seeking to answer it? How does one give a 'straight answer' to a 'trick question'? Like when did you stop beating your wife? You really need to take some lessons in rhetoric and formal logic, and I'm not going to give you them for free. I abandoned teaching students a long time ago. Still, as I'm feeling generous and it's raining in the gardnen...
The majority of the British people, as expressed in votes caste in successive parliamentary elections, over and over again, NEVER supported Thatcher's policies. They war always a substantial majority against the Conservative's election manifesto, again and again. As a maximum, the percentage of votes caste for Thatcher was only 42 moving towards 43 per cent. The rest, went more or less, to the combined opposition parties. So the Conservatives were a long way from ever receiving a majority, let alone a 'landslide' as there share was often referred to by the press. But the British voting system being what it is, an un-reformed mess and grossly unfair, gave the Conservatives a massive majority in parliament, a majority that allowed them to simply push through asocial and very unpopular policies, like in a dictatorship. Everybody knows about the vagaries of the British voting system that produces such bizarre anomalies, that people insist on still calling democratic! I don't really agree about that.
The majority of British public opinion as 'expressed' or measured in opinoin polls, often produces results which are at odds with the policies advanced by the three major political parties, this doesn't seem to worry the politicians particularly, as once they agree about a policy what the people actually think doesn't really matter very much.
One could mention hanging. Depending on how one asks the question, there is either a massive, a large, or tiny majority for bringing back capital punishment. Politicians, our democratic representatives, ignore the 'will of the people'. Privitization of public untilities. There was always a substantial majority against most privitizations, yet the Conservatives went ahead with privitization anyway. The Iraq war. Here, once again there was a majority against attacking Iraq in the country, yet in parliament, the opposite was true. So time and time again, our political representatives adopt positions and pursue policies at odds with the wishes and attitudes of the people, but as they say, such is democracy!
A little history. Thatcher's unpopularity grew and grew until in desparate attempt to save themselves her own party rejected her, betrayed her, stuck the knife in her back! But such was the size of her majority in parliament that it took years and successive elections to chop it away, once again a product of the perculiar nature of British parliamentary democracy.
Towards the end of her reign, almost everyone in the three mainstream political parties had rejected Thatcher's policies. Being associated with her was the kiss of death. The major parties did pay lip service, and only lip service to reversing her policies, because these policies were so destructive and socially divisive. Britain became a classic 'class society' with little islands of wealth and boundless privilege surrounded by a society fraying at the edges towards the centre. The massive expansion in the financial sector, especially in London, where things matter, gave the impression that the entire economy and country was doing well. This was false. Whilst there were 'islands' of prosperity in other areas of the country there was also deprevation and decay.
So the City grew richer, property prices boomed which once again gave people the impression they were becoming richer if they could borrow and many did. The massive increase in the 'credit economy' also led to people perceiving themselves as being richer. Finally one had the substantial transfer of wealth based on selling off the nationalized industries at rock bottom prices and finally, finally, the boom of revenues from North Sea oil and gas, used for consumption and tax cuts instead of investment in education and infrastructure. Selling the oil as such low prices was equivalent to selling off the family silver for a party.
Alas all that is now over and part of history, and now the bill has to be paid for the party. The chickens are coming home to roost. I doubt we will ever see anything like it again in our lifetimes. The imaginary bubble of prosperity has definitively burst.
The legacy of Thatcher has been thirty wasted years, thirty years moving in the wrong direction, thirty years of waste and destruction, thirty years of costly illusions, and now the entire house of cards like an elaborate stage set is falling apart around our ears.
-
Paul
01 April 2008 at 16:52 "The legacy of Thatcher has been thirty wasted years, thirty years moving in the wrong direction, thirty years of waste and destruction, thirty years of costly illusions, and now the entire house of cards like an elaborate stage set is falling apart around our ears." (Writeon).
Nothing to do with the last 10+ years of New Labour rule, then? Ten years of policies so profligate, so divisive, so alien to the British psyche, that wherever you look people are saying Britain is finished.
Antileft, I sympathise. It's like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling here. I've dabbled before and given up. At least Writeon has something to say, even if it's peppered with insulting questions about your mental state which, I can well believe, is brought on by sheer frustration.
Writeon makes play of the 43% of votes cast for Thatcher. He might like to consider that, as things stand, at least two out of three people would not vote for the current government. A good proportion of those are sober, thinking people who hate New Labour with an intensity even Maggie's opponents could barely muster. Theirs was mere class hatred; ours is hatred of a political experiment which has achieved destruction of everything the rest of the world admired about Britain.
As for Knave, I pity the children at the school of which this confused man is a governor. All he seems to manage is quoting Popper's theory. Sorry - not quoting it, mentioning it. Impressed?
As for all of you, "revearsing" is spelt reversing.
-
knave
01 April 2008 at 17:15 Paul you have found a soul mate in antileft. Same rational manner.
Theirs. Incorrect grammar. If we are been picky.
Why post on a centre left website and then expect everybody to agree with your point of view. Your right it is confusing
-
knave
01 April 2008 at 17:20 "Theirs was mere class hatred; ours is hatred of a political experiment which has achieved destruction of everything the rest of the world admired about Britain."
A little confusing when Maggie said that new labour was her greatest achievement.
-
Paul
01 April 2008 at 18:34 Knave, if you're talking about "theirs" as in the sentence above, it is correct. That should be obvious, being followed by its complement, "ours". They're called possessive pronouns. Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs. Of them, of us.
I only mentioned "revearsing" because it was repeated again and again in subsequent clips.
And please don't lecture me on grammar when your next sentence is "Your right it is confusing". Do I have to explain - to a school governor of all people?
On Maggie, I don't find her comment confusing so much as interesting. What do you think she meant by it?
Why do I post here? Because I hope the blinkered Left might occasionally see a little bit of sense in a view shared by all those millions who don't want to see our country wrecked any further by a socialist movement which has ceased to trust the individual and believes the state can fix everything. A forlorn hope, it seems.
-
knave
01 April 2008 at 19:58 Paul
You must be the only person who think New Labour is a socialist experiment.
I think Maggie was explaining that New Labour was an extension of her legacy.
-
knave
01 April 2008 at 20:41 "Why do I post here? Because I hope the blinkered Left might occasionally see a little bit of sense in a view shared by all those millions who don't want to see our country wrecked any further by a socialist movement which has ceased to trust the individual and believes the state can fix everything. A forlorn hope, it seems."
So Paul you see yourself as an old testament prophet.
I can understand all the hate references now.
P.S You were correct about the grammar. Although I hope your not one of those Lynne Truss types who go into greengrocers and complain about the grammar.
-
writeon
01 April 2008 at 20:56 Paul,
I am genuinely puzzled as to why 'Antileft' is so incredibly angry and vitriolic. Don't you find his language just a little over the top? Is it calling so many people fools, idiots ect. considered appropriate in your neck of the woods? It just strikes me that his constant resort to verbal abuse of his opponents in debate is highly problematic and disturbing. Why the constant recourse to name-calling and expressions of violent anger, just because people refuse to answer his questions on demand?
I can assure you I am not frustrated by Antileft's questions, just puzzled as to why he thinks they are so profound and challeging. They are not, only slightly irritating, because the assumptions and premises they are based on are so obviously biased and proscriptive. The 'questions' are supposed to elite an answer in a debate, rather they so blatently ideological and narrow that only certain answers are possible. That Antileft is evidently so proud of his cunning questions and seems to regard them as 'difficult' and 'challenging', questions full of such profundity that 'Leftists' will quake in their boots when faced with them, is frankly amusing and would almost be charming if Antileft's anger wasn't so distastful and worrying.
As to the last ten years of New Labour, I included them in the last thirty years of mistakes. I consider New Labour to be merely a more or less intact continuation of the folly of Thatchrism. I am absolutely no fan of New Labour. I don't see much difference between them and John Major, who almost seems to the 'Left' of them and certainly as pragmatic after the years of ideology and dogma that characterized Thatcherism.
Fundamentally I think Britain has been moving in the wrong direction for thirty years or more. The responsibility for this can be laid at the door of both the Conservatives and Labour. I think both parties have destroyed much and created very little of lasting value. I would have prefered to keep much of traditional British values rather than the trite and vacuous commercialized 'marketplace' culture that has blossomed under both parties. I suppose I'm close to an old-school Tory in many ways, coming from that background myself, though rejecting a lot of it for various reasons.
I dislike Thatcherism because I think the priorities and interests of the City and the financial sector were promoted to the detrement of almost all other aspects of British society. Allowing vast swathes of British industry to go under was not only mistaken industrial policy, it also had very negative effect on Britain's social structure. David Cameron's statement that Britain is a 'broken society' is correct, and New Labour and the Conservatives are both responsible. The really interesting question is how did Britain get broken?
I think the destruction of millions of good jobs in manufacturing industry has a lot to do with it. Put crudely, 'proper' jobs were the 'glue' that held much of society together. Skilled workers had an identity that people serving in Starbucks and flipping burgers in Burger King do not have. I think the de-skilling and de-industrialisation of Britain was a profound mistake. A mistake of historic proportions, which we are going to pay dearly for in the future. Britain is now in an extremely vulnerable economic position as we are perhaps on the edge of an economic slump the likes of which the world hasn't seen since the 1930's. A society so reliant on the financial sector, the housing market and cheap and easy credit, is not in good position to weather the coming storm.
What I do find somewhat ironic is that Thatcher destroyed the old Tory Party, she despised most real Conservative values, and Tony Blair destroyed the old Labour Party in much the same way. And what do we have now in their place? Mush. Second-raters. Lake of courage and ideas. Drift. Politics is apperently dead and the ideology of the 'marketplace' has taken over, heaven help us all!
-
knave
01 April 2008 at 21:22 "Do I have to explain - to a school governor of all people?"
Paul you seemed to obsessed by the fact I am a school governor. Well it is not that difficult.
Let me explain the process.
1. You must have a loving relationship with a member of the opposite sex. For you this is the difficult part. You seem to lack any empathy for any other human.
2. Then you must be lucky to be blessed with children.
3. They go to a local school.
4. You apply to be a governor.
I don't teach them, just support the head and the teaching staff. No great shakes. Even you Paul could do it. If only you can complete stages 1 and 2.
-
Cybertiger
01 April 2008 at 21:42 Thank G-d Harryantileft has gone to bed! I haven't read any of of his tripe, but I bet it was. Harry may live in the land of the rising sun, but I hope he doesn't. May his sun set forever.
PS. I wonder why Harry felt the need to change his name to 'antileft'. He must have felt humiliated in some way. Perhaps Harry had too few brain cells. Does antileft have any more? So many questions, so few answers! Does anybody care?
-
Cybertiger
01 April 2008 at 21:49 @writeon
"Politics is apperently dead and the ideology of the 'marketplace' has taken over, heaven help us all!"
Sadly, I agree with you. Britons now live in the land of the setting sun.
PS. I think the sun is setting faster in the US, G-d bless 'em!
-
Paul
01 April 2008 at 23:38 Some common ground at last, Writeon. It doesn't seem to occur to Knave that I'm genuinely interested in the alternative view and might even learn from it. Cheap put-downs and patronising lectures do not bring out the best in people; perhaps that is why Antileft gets so steams up.
For the record, Knave, I am blessed with children of whom I am enormously proud, I have been a school governor myself, and am in a loving relationship with a wife of many years. She is also a magistrate and a damn good one - not, as you might think, because she's a fragrant Tory who delights in sending down the riff-raff. Rather the opposite; like me she's a political sceptic who admits to having a problem with authority.
I learn a lot from her too. The agony of seeing kids in court who never stood a chance from the moment they were born haunts her daily. She knows there is something desperately wrong with the world in which they are being brought up but can do little about it other than issue them with government-approved bandages. She also knows their possibly irreversible problems would not have been solved by money alone, nor by pity from the bleeding hearts of the state, nor by a continual stream of publicity-seeking strategies, initiatives and regulations
from the government. The rot runs deeper; indeed these may have been the very cause.
Somehow we have to bring back to some old fashioned values. People laugh because the idea is so unfashionable, so out of touch. Why, then, if discipline in school, self-reliance, competition, risk-seeking, tolerance, fortitude, humility and respect for elders worked in the past - and continues to bring stability in many other societies - is it so risible in ours?
And what happened to the concepts of shame, guilt and correction which are so deeply seated in our DNA that even a cat with her kittens displays them? Could it be a creeping process by which the state has taken control of our lives to such an extent that we no longer question its wisdom? You are now a heretic if you object to the total ban on smoking in pubs - a measure that has alienated millions of decent people and devastated the trade - or challenge global warming theories. Through an education system which promotes feelings over logic, we are conditioned to believe the government knows best because its only skill now is in manipulating our feelings through soundbites and emotional blackmail.
Knave, I do not worship at the shrine of Maggie but I still admire how she brought this country back from the precipice. How easily we forget the state it was in, the "sick man of Europe" controlled by barons like Arthur Scargill, Red Robbo and Derek Hatton. At one time these men had a noble vision. They ended up as rebels with a lost cause which, make no mistake, threatened to bankrupt the country more swiftly and thoroughly than anything New Labour could have achieved. It could not go on a moment longer, and that was before competition from the East intensified.
So yes, perhaps we do have some things in common, Writeon. These will Include the need for a kip!
-
antileft
02 April 2008 at 07:55 Paul, youre doing a good job. Im going to leave these twits here for you- good luck trying to get straight answers out of them.
Oh and writeon- at last youve made a crude effort at answering my question. Well done for that! Of course, it's a bit of a silly answer.
Your answer involves all three parties basically ignoring the will of the people, even though they are rabidly competing for votes. Cant you see how silly this is? New Labour won the election precisely because they made peace with thatcher and precisely because they gave up on the idea of nationalising industry, and instead commited to privatisation. Why, one has to wonder, didnt labour win before, when they were still against thatcher's policies? Why for that matter dont the liberal democrats make use of this enormous mass of popular support for revearsing thatcher's policies, when they clearly want more votes? Hmm I suppose its something to do with the fact that they dont actually want votes that much... Theyve just, erm, decided that this is how it is... Or something random like that...
As for this idea that the whole voting system is unfair- well, all parties have to deal with the same system. Isnt it odd, my word how odd, that labour came to power only after accepting thatcher's legacy. How odd that the terrible system you mention somehow rewarded them for that, but punished them when they were against her legacy. Hmmm....
By the way, the statistic you gave about the majority backing capital punishment is so typical of you- just like when you said that america spends double what they say on their military- you give statistics as much as I do but unlike me, you never give sources. How can we believe someone who says "statistics dont count. Now, here are some of mine..."
I asked you for your source last time but of course you didnt reply to that.
Not that it's about opinion polls anyway- it's about votes and thought- out opinions. You phone up someone and ask "do you agree with the death penalty for a killer of kids" and theyll say "yes" but when the debate comes along, and when they discuss whether it should be hanging or the needle, and you discuss the possibility of a mistake, people switch sides. It's up to politicians not to follow opinion polls, but to follow votes. "Do you want to revearse thatcher's lagacy" might be tempting for some who arent very bright, and many who arent very political. But when they start reopening old state owned coal mines which cost a fortune to run and which arent productive, using your money, youll think twice. That's why, the more people debate, the more right the country moves. As we can see.
Twit.
Bye.
-
knave
02 April 2008 at 08:15 "For the record, Knave, I am blessed with children of whom I am enormously proud, I have been a school governor myself, and am in a loving relationship with a wife of many years"
Are you sure they are real. If she is, she must love you spending saturday afternoons reading scientific papers on climate changes.
Play with the kids. It will make you happier
Also Paul was Britain any different in the eighties than it is now.
Thatcher is no different than Blair or Brown.Their policies are very similar
Also you sound like those pub bores going on about the education system and life generally because you lack the qualities that you want society to aspire to.
Also if you think people like antileft possess those qualities, then that says it all.
Trouble is that Paul you are tribal in nature and don't think out of the box.
Read write on, BET and tag they are non aligned thinkers who have ability to that.
You might learn something.
-
writeon
02 April 2008 at 08:29 Antileft,
Why do you continually wish to cross swords with me when you simply aren't up to the job?
When you attempts at argument fail you resort to dishonesty, obsfucation and intellectual sleights of hand. Your dishonesty is so blatant and amateurish. You fabricate a qoute which you falsely attribute to me. I have never said, "statistics don't count. Now, here are some of mine..."
What I have said is that one should be careful and sceptical in relation to much statistical material, especially if it's produced by a government. Statistics are indicators, or models of reality nothing more. I merely use statistics in very general way, as I find them questionable and unreliable most of the time. You seem to believe that I'm so inept and dishonest that I would pluck 'statistics' out of thin air to support my arguments. What possible reason would I have for lying in this crude fashion? Surely you don't think I need to use lies to refute your arguments? Once again you allow your inflated ego to get the better of your common sense.
Why don't you do some work for a change and carry out some research on your own instead of asking me to supply you with sources and chapter and verse. Study the available material on, for example, the US military budget. There is a lot of it available out there. There is virtually no one who believes the official figures are anywhere near an accurate measure of actual state expenditure on the military. There are of course differences as to how inaccurate the official government figures really are. A figure of 50% is generally accepted, but when one factors in the vast sums spent on research and development in various universities and the private sector, many people concede that the 'true' figure is probably in the region of double the official figure. But don't take my word for it go and do some research yourself, I'm confident you'll find some very interesting statistics for you to chew over!
-
antileft
02 April 2008 at 09:09 Why would I do some research to back up something you said?! Oh what an idiot you are! Look at this stupidity:
"The first rule is to be sceptical of statisitcs and who provides them"
But in this case, as you havent shown me the source- so youre providing the statistics!!!
If youre using the statistic that the majority of the British public are supposedly against thatcher's reforms to show that they were wrong (or that the country is undemocratic), when I clearly think otherwise and dont buy the statistic (largely because I can see that everyone votes for thatcherite parties these days), then you have to show where you got that statistic from! Otherwise- why even bother saying it?! I dont know the background to the poll you read, or if you even read a poll! It's not up to me to go out and somehow disprove a random fact which I think is untrue! You have the statistics- show them! Or did you just make them up, or worse still- read them in the new statesman? I bet you read it on some silly left-leaning blog, didnt you?
Of course, you also failed to explain to me why it was that labour suddenly got into power again only when blair said that he wouldnt revearse thatcher's policy. Good luck explaining that one.
I know I said Id go- but that last post of yours was just too moronic
-
antileft
02 April 2008 at 09:21 "You seem to believe that I'm so inept and dishonest that I would pluck 'statistics' out of thin air to support my arguments."
Correct! Prove me wrong.
"Surely you don't think I need to use lies to refute your arguments?"
Yes I do. Prove me wrong. Go on- let's see where you got your statistics from.
-
antileft
02 April 2008 at 09:22 I want to see the statistic showing the people of britain NOW want to go back on thatcher's legacy. Let's see it.
-
writeon
02 April 2008 at 19:58 Antileft,
I am now convinced you are mentally disturbed and need professional help. Your arguments are semi-incoherent and raving. What you do over and over again is simply invent 'statements' I have made, and interpret them to suit your own prejudices and attitudes. It 's the dishonesty of your approach that I find so unpleasant. It's like a characteristic of the Facist psyche. Your crazed, hectoring tone, is bizarre and disturbing. The pathology of the 'Troll' would seem to be a mixture of an inferiortity complex mixed with a superiority complex, adding narcissim, with a dash of self-flagelation, all designed with one purpose, to gain attention. What a sorry state of affairs.
But I'll come clean, your superior intellect and razor-sharp mind has beaten me hands down. I'll admit it all. I made everything up, you were right all along! I fabricated everything I said just to beat you, and all in vain! Thatcher was a hero and had the overwhelming support of nine out of ten people in Britain. The US defence budget is acatually far lower than the official figures would have one believe. Thatcher never only received 43% of the votes. I made it up to try to fool you, sorrry. Of course Britain is the world's greatest democracy, just because all the three major parties are 'Thatcherite' doesn't mean that voters don't have a real choice, it only proves the opposite, that because the voters are more or less all Thatchrites, the parties are really following the will of the electorate, which of course is only natural in a democracy!
You don't need to bother doing any research yourself and critical examination of the relevant statistical material, because, as you suspected, and I hang my head in shame over theis, it doesn't exist. I was lying and you found me out. I appologise most secerely and hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me, you win hands down!
-
Paul
02 April 2008 at 23:34 "Are you sure they [children/wife] are real. If she is, she must love you spending saturday afternoons reading scientific papers..."
"You sound like those pub bores going on about the education system..."
"If you think people like antileft possess those qualities..."
"You are tribal in nature and don't think out of the box..."
"You might learn something..."
Knave, if this is your idea of constructive debate I give up. I am at least grateful for one thing - that my children do not attend any school of which you are a governor.
-
antileft
03 April 2008 at 04:11 writeon, no surprise here then! You tell me that Im "mentally disturbed" (oh very intellectual), and yet, it's you who is clearly making up statistics. I want to see proof that Thatcher's legacy is something that the british people want to revearse. But I dont believe the the proof exists. Why? Because ever sinse Thatcher, they have only voted for thatcherism. They only voted for labour when they moved towards thatcherism. All the main parties have accepted it- because clearly it would be electoral suicide to start talking about revearsing it. This is clear from the results. Sure, opinion polls went up and down when she was in office (as is expected with a radical change of course) but now that she's gone- the majority clearly continue to vote for thatcherism.
And yet, you seem to think otherwise- as though you have read a poll about it- and not only that, but a poll which is apparently more reliable and trustworthy than the BBC (which according to you is biased). But will you show me this wonderful source of information? No. See? Youre an idiot. Youre also clearly making things up. This much is blatant- if you had the information you would show me in order to make me look bad. Shame ya cant do it. Caught you out, didnt I?
-
taghioff.info
03 April 2008 at 05:58 @antileft
"And mixed is not what I have a problem with- as long as it's business-friendly. What I dislike is the hard left which seems to think that business is somehow anti-people. Which is just stupid."
Then you are not really of the economic right, you are a centrist. Business is clearly not anti-people, but the exercise of political and economic power needs strong limits to avoid it becoming so. That is what much of the radical left is calling for, perhaps you are so anti because you are attracted to arguments with people that conform to your stereotypes.
In Argentina, as in Russia, it was over rapid-liberalisation, which is not in any way a mixed economy model, that brought on the collapse. It is one of the few very, very clear patterns in economic history that no, and I repeat, no economy develops successfully through rapid liberalization.
http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm
Chile's current prosperity is most probably due to the more moderate policies pursued after Pinochet, the initial rapid liberalization model was not at all sucessfull.
But hey, I am preaching to the converted, you are a mixed economy man after all. Sweden is a good instance of a healthy mixed economy, very business friendly but decided socialist. Europe is headed that way in the longer term, and most likely the world will follow.
Far-right economic policies lead to social instability, think New Orleans, and we cannot afford that in the coming age of climate instability. So the far right has had its day, long live the mixed economy.
-
taghioff.info
03 April 2008 at 06:27 By the way, even the ruling center-left bits of the UK polity are catching on to these ideas, sadly the radicals are winning a lot of the arguments now, meaning we are running out of clear red water:
http://www.progressive-governance.net/researchprogrammes/ind...
But this rather underlines
1) That New Labour is actively rethinking the Thatcherite legacy
2) The left is not at all what its detractors think it is, we are not stuck in the cold war anymore, unlike the American right.
-
antileft
03 April 2008 at 06:57 Some fair points, taghioff.info. I respectfully (but only parcially) disagree with you about Argentina and Russia- I think that Russia especially is only growing as it is because of the reforms of the 90s (Putin was very lucky to be able to take all the credit)- but I accept that it would certainly be less painful if reformers could work slightly slower but keep momentum. One thing though which Im not crazy about is your use of the word "we"!:
"The left is not at all what its detractors think it is, we are not stuck in the cold war anymore, unlike the American right"
The left youre talking about is the mainstream left- which is now capitalist and pretty close to thatcherism. However, on this site we can clearly see that "the left" covers a lot of people, and unfortunately still includes a lot of far leftists- which is shown by the support Chavez and the like always receive. So I have an issue only with your work "we", which I think would have been better used if you has been anywhere other than the new statesman- the place of pilger and hugh o' somethingarather- two far left pillocks who for some reason still command a lot of respect here. Hence, my name- I wouldnt use it anywhere where left is accepted as meaning "economically capitalist". But here, it still tends to have radical connotations, unfortunately.
-
taghioff.info
04 April 2008 at 13:15 Yes, it is always dangerous to "we" some might think you are taking the ...
I actually like what Pilger says, it is very good to have critical voices who point out abuses of power, it is part of what sometimes makes democracy worthwhile.
I think that there is actually a lot of variation even in the mainstream left. Sweden is a far cry from the UK, far to its left despite the conservative government there and the so-called left-wing government here.
The radicalism for me is in restructuring the global polity so that it gives a voice to the poor majority. That would give us a social contract that might carry us through the shifting weather we face ahead, without sacrificing too many lives.
This to me is the radical future of democracy, and hopefully the way towards a civilized world, which is not what we live in now. If that means that the global economy becomes a mixed economy, with a form of Global Welfare State, then so be it. If it is good enough for nations, it is good enough for the world.
-
walter libby
22 June 2008 at 22:44 The End Of History
The End Point and The End Game
With the fall of the Soviet Union it was widely believed that we had witness the end of history, the end of the historical war between democracy and Marxism. But with the rise of communist China, we are again faced with the historical question: who will be left standing at the end of history?
This time around it looks like the final battle. And the news from the front isn’t good. Communist China, simply by opening its trade door to the world’s capitalists has pretty much captured the means of production along with the technology and the wealth and so the wherewithal to build up its military strength. Does this mean that Marxism is set to dominate the world? Not quite. It is not the rise of worldwide communism that China has in mind, but “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” It is China that has captured the means of production and it is China that seeks to dominate the world. And they intend to do so not by military dominance, but by waging total economic war. A war we are on the verge of losing. And as we lose it, so goes the world. This is China’s end point and end game.
So, before they succeed, we have to get in the game. Not only do we need a vision that pulls our economy out of recession, we also need one that will win the ideological war. That is, we need an end point and end game of our own.
But first, it is necessary to put China’s end game in perspective. To do so, however, we have to take communist/imperialist China temporarily off the board and view them as just another global player.
To begin we have to go back to 1976. That’s the year the United States began running a continuous and mounting trade deficit (a continuous rise in global unemployment). It began as Japan and Germany rebuilt their economies and emerged as formidable competitors, followed by the Asian tigers and then the Asian tyrannosaurus-rex—China. According to economists, however, this should not be a problem. America's trade deficit would be brought into balance as a weakening dollar gives the U.S. a competitive edge, regardless of their technological and low-wage comparative advantages, and bring our current account into balance. In lay terms this would be called a teeter-totter global economy—an up and down game that keeps the global economy balanced. But some players are unwilling to play. As evidenced by China as it pegged its currency to the dollar. If it had not done so their economy would have stagnated as its exchange rate rose to a point where it lost its competitive edge and the global economy would have lost a significant trading partner.
Now, however, since it has become the factory to the world, it has been pressured to reevaluate the yuan and has modestly relented. But since China has become the factory to the world, the benefits are doubtful. As the yuan strengthens, the costs of their exports rise, which translates into fewer exports, and a rise in domestic unemployment. For us it means they export inflation while we export more dollars. So, pursuing this line of thinking could push the global economy into a recession—the seesaw is broke in the middle.
Then there is this: In the real world our competitors distort the currency markets by purchasing dollars (one aspect of pegging) to keep their currencies competitive that become part of their dollar reserves. To date Japan and China have both stashed a trillion dollars under their mattresses.
And it’s just not here that there is a problem. Japan holds approximately 600 billion dollars in Treasury securities while China holds nearly 400 billion dollars. This is not altruism. The investment angle aside, they are simply pursuing their own self-interest. By investing in government bonds they further prop up the dollar and in so doing protect their economies while allowing the United States to remain a significant export market.
Yet despite all this the dollar remains weak. And so there is a rise in our exports—but not enough to keep our trade deficit from widening. So how long does the U.S. have to sit at the top while others sit meekly at the bottom? That’s the wrong question. The right question is: How much longer will other nations prop up the dollar and our financial house while allowing us to keep bellying up to the pot while putting less in as we continue to export more dollars?
China and Japan are our major competitors and it’s not necessary to go on down the list, the point is they reflect the world at large—a global economy not only out of balance, but unlikely to be balanced. The reason that it has yet to reach a tipping point is that while they shored up their economies by propping up our financial house, we became a nation of rampant speculators and unrestrained shoppers. Hype in the stock markets over dot.com ventures led to a rapid expansion of paper wealth that fueled an economic boom as well as a boon in capital gains taxes that not only contributed significantly to budget surpluses, but had economists forecasting that they would continue far into the future and within ten years our national debt would be zero. It was the age of irrational exuberance. And when the bubble burst, budget surpluses evaporated, fell into deficit, and the economy itself, in 2001, slipped into recession.
Not so much in response, but for disparate reasons, the nation’s fiscal and monetary arsenal was pretty much deployed. Massive tax cuts (mostly for the wealthy) and massive pork barrel spending by a Republican Congress (trading principle for power) and a maximum cut in interest rates, by a sober Federal Reserve, to rock bottom quickly brought the economy out of recession. But rock bottom interest rates quickly led to a housing boom and a frenzy of speculation in the housing markets and a windfall for homeowners who refinanced and cashed out on their inflated equity and went on a spending spree buying SUV,s, remodeling their homes or moving up, buying high end televisions or whatever their hearts desired. But eventually reality checked in as rising prices soared out of reach for prospective buyers and the bubble collapsed.
Now the economy again is slipping—despite a weak dollar and a rise in exports—into recession (this time with no bubbles in sight). So, again, the Fed is pushing interest rates to rock bottom at the same time providing greater liquidity to the financial markets while the President and Congress throws out a stimulus package of rebates for individuals and tax incentives for businesses. But given that America is an upside down nation facing a credit crunch, rising food and oil prices, and in the midst of a severely slumping housing market, they will not have a sustainable effect.
So here the problem isn't simply with China, nations regardless of ideology seek, or attempt to seek, their own self-interest, and in so doing play a dangerous zero-sum game. A game where economists have no viable answers, other than pursuing more trade agreements, as such politicians are at a lost. We are out of the game.
That said, communist China is very much in the game; their end game is to win the zero-sum game. The backbone of Marxism is that capitalism has gone down a path that ultimately leads to its collapse. For the “bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the whole relations of society… The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere… All established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones… In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations… The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all even the most barbarian nations into civilization… The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which batters down all Chinese walls, with which forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate… The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of towns. Has greatly increased the urban population…It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society… In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would seemed an absurdity—the epidemic of overproduction… society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence, industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, to much industry, too much commerce… And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit to be the ruling class in society… It is unfit to rule, because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within this slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state that it has to feed, instead of being fed by him.”
So said, worldwide unemployment reaches a critical mass, and capitalism collapses. As it does, the workers rise en masse, overthrow the existing order, take control of the means of production, and establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat” that oversees the shift from socialism to communism.
Well, as we know, history didn’t go according to Marx. Lenin and Mao became impatient vultures—instead of waiting for the death of capitalism, they became birds of prey, they wanted to kill now. And to achieve the means to their end, command economies that would bury capitalism, they started on their own people.
So today we are faced with communist China (and to some extent Russia—their favorite monkey). And while their end point hasn’t changed, their end game has. Faced with the concrete reality that centrally planned economies have failed, China opted for the capitalist road and in so doing are now in a position to accelerate the collapse of capitalism. And they have targeted the United States as the first domino. While we shipped them our manufacturing jobs, they gave us the trade finger (say unfair trade practices doesn’t quite cut it). They knew full well that their peg was a cannon in their arsenal. So, together with our loss of jobs we are being pushed to the brink.
There is no real surprise here. But there is tremendous anxiety and an acute sense of danger. We are in a recession, a recession that feeds on itself as unemployment begets more unemployment and recession turns into a great depression; as such, we are faced with the very real prospect of economic collapse that precludes any revolution—China has already captured the means of production. Even so, does this mean that Marx was right?
If so, China has played the game well. Opening their door to the world’s capitalists set off a race to the bottom—the constant search for cheaper wages, lower taxes and weaker environmental and other regulations by capitalists who in the end produce a downward spiral in socio-economic conditions in the United States and other industrial countries—as their respective Atlases shrugged and beat feet to China.
The underlying rationalization, other than exploiting a vast and untapped market (that would benefit America), was that as communist China shifted to free markets, with a rising middle class, there would an inexorable shift to democracy. Anyone that believes that today is wearing some serious rose-tinted glasses.
Meanwhile China got a firm grip on the Shruggers’ financial balls, and as they lobbied Washington—don’t offend them, don’t make them squeeze—their hearts and minds soon followed. The appeasement by previous administrations is now firmly locked into the present administration. And looking over the horizon there is no would-be president that even dares to step out on the yellow brick road.
That said, China, in their quest, was never going to risk a nuclear war (and if they did, did they consider the China syndrome. A doomsday scenario where the U.S.’s thirty-five nuclear power plants melt down and spread nuclear radiation around the world to China). They were never going to risk the means of production. Their end game is total economic war. It is The Art of War: “To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” And while its author, Sun Tzu, lived in 6th century B.C. imperialist China, his ideas are alive today. And their skill is still paramount. Fools still rush in—or are they fellow travelers or just anti-America? It’s hard to tell.
But it is easy to see that the President and would-be presidents, other than the occasional complaining about unfair trade practices and meaningless sanctions by Congress, do not want to offend our “ banker”. Better to focus on NAFTA, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, al qaeda, and illegal aliens—anything but saying these are Marxists whose intentions are to “overthrow the existing order.” As such, it seems like we have pretty much surrendered.
Even so, rumor has it that after the Munich games, China will deploy the nuclear option under the guise: it only makes financial sense to shift from the dollar, from treasuries, and invest in a basket of currencies—is this de-pegging, they are only giving us what we want? Whatever, it is only the senseless that will not see this as an overt act of unrestricted warfare against the democracies of the world. And while China threatens foreclosure, we are working against ourselves, as politicians cannot agree on a plan that forestalls home foreclosures that must include mandating a freeze on the resetting of adjustable rate mortgages.
In the meantime Taiwan has become less of an issue and more of a deception. They too joined the race to bottom and invested heavily in China while approximately one million Taiwanese moved to China to live and work. So at home, Taiwan is paying the price, unemployment is becoming an issue. As such they have already been conquered. And we too are about to be conquered.
They’ve have propped up our economy so they could suck out our jobs, our technology (by hook or crook), our resources, until finally they’ve sucked out our last economic breath. And even if they hold on to their dollars and U.S. bonds, it was a good investment. So what if they lose trillions of dollars, they will suffer no casualties. As our economy heads deeper into recession our credibility in the world’s financial markets wanes, especially as the Fed drops interest to rock bottom. So along with a financial meltdown, the dollar crashes and is no longer accepted in the world’s oil markets. Without imported oil, a sound economy, our military becomes a wounded paper tiger—limping its way back home. When that day comes, China will be in control of the world.
As the U.S. economy falls deeper into a depression, the price of raw resources will plummet in the world's commodity markets, notably oil—and those exporting nations will lose significant revenues. To maintain their economies, they are going to have to sell more for less. And as they do, they will have little choice, they will have to turn to China—who will demand long-term contracts. But in the not so long term, China’s voracious consumption, its need to build so-called modern cities for the remaining four hundred million or so Chinese living in rural poverty, will draw down their oil reserves. And as they continue to put away their bicycles and put a billion cars on the road they will drain their reserves and as they decline, so does their economy. Then what? In a post-American world China is free to do whatever it wants—take whatever it needs.
So Russia and Iran what do you think about that? And how about Bin Laden, what does he think happens as a godless ideology dominates the world (mess with them and they will mess with Mecca—turn yourself in or else)? China is at war with the world. And they are close to achieving their end point--the end of history: the final battle for the survival of the fittest.
Even so, this is risky business. Having gone down the capitalist road, they too may have gone down a road of no return. With the fall of the United States, Japan, Germany, India, and other industrial economies immediately go into decline; aided by a falling dollar and a concurrent rise in their currencies and China, despite its peg to dollar, can’t help but follow. Their zero-sum game ultimately threatens their economy.
While the irony for capitalism is that it provided the shovel that will bury us, the irony for China is that its reserve army of unemployed becomes so large that they will rise up and attempt to overthrow the existing order. But revolution, in Marxist theory, is no longer possible (unless the dogs of war cut their leashes and join the revolution). In Marx’s day it was muskets and cannons that revolutionaries faced—today, as we know, it is at least tanks and machine guns. If the Chinese communists have to slaughter millions of Chinese, so be it—what’s another few million more (when your goal is power for the sake of power)? So, in the end, if they do rule the world they will be a country that continues to live in fear of its Orwellian rulers.
Of course China intends on applying the Marxist end point maxim: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Some work and some don’t? Whatever, how this plays out is a moot question. The game is not over. Here is where it gets risky.
Bush’s invasion of Iraq was about oil. But it only makes sense (it wasn’t going to be our oil) if it was about keeping China out. They were in the midst of a securing a long-term oil contract with Hussein—no more Saddam, no more pending deal. But today China again is pursuing the same deal. And while it’s not a done deal, yet you have wonder is China influencing Iraqi politicians (the Shiites) to push America out? And once out, they renegotiate all oil contracts in favor of China? The recent move by Iraq to accept no-bid service contracts for existing fields from western oil companies does not mean that they will not do business with China for the development of new fields.
Whatever. Oil is the life-blood of all industrial nations. The ideological struggle between China and the U.S. becomes second fiddle to the battle for peak oil—a war that could bring on the end of all history. Before any of this happens, we have to get in the game.
So what is our end point? The ideological battle began with the industrial revolution and it will end when it comes to a sustainable end—so whither the industrial revolution? Here’s the vision: The lights out factory. Lights out because there are no workers. It is robots with the smarts, dexterity, tactile reflex, and the eye-hand coordination (O.K, some lights) that will assemble (and disassemble for recycling) the components already pretty much produced by machines. Now picture a factory where robots shift from assembling toasters to assembling computers. Here, potentially all various brands of consumer goods (here meant to mean the basic necessities) can be produced and assembled in one factory (scaled to meet local or regional needs)—here we have the ultimate in productivity and efficiency. So as these factories rise throughout the world, the industrial revolution comes to a peaceful end.
Of course the problem is that human slaves are much cheaper than robots. But once the race to the bottom flattens out, hits the bottom of the barrel, there will be a race to the top, a race for full automation.
The problem is that right now is that the free market, driven by pure self-interest continues to produce more unemployment. That has to end before our economy collapses.
Our first move is shift from an economy that is unsustainable to one that is. The second is to put aside the issues and vitriol (at all levels) that divide us and focus on the challenges that are threatening us all. It’s time for a change. It’s time to realize what empowers our marketplace—and so our democracy—is a collective free market will where self-interest rightly understood is that it is in all our best interest to insure the integrity of whole. So there is no point in bemoaning what got us into this mess. The point is we have to shape up and stand together to meet the challenge.
And as we make these key moves, we pull our economy out of recession and away from the specter of collapse—it’s what economists (forget Marx) call creative destruction—in other words, out with the old and in with the new. The lights in the global economy are dimming and we have to get ahead of the curve. We have to get our heads out of the short-term box and start thinking about how we become more self-reliant and more creative. This is our end game.
But before we go there we have to understand the crisis that threatens us all. Total economic war means not only a run on the dollar, our banks and stock markets, but also a run on our supermarkets.
Here, there is a two-edged sword. The skyrocketing in oil prices is impacting food prices (compounded by the absurdity of trading food for fuel). And while high prices will impact the head of the food chain, the conventional farms, and trickle down to the consumer, rising fuel prices can crush the tail of distribution. Our supermarkets are replenished every day. What happens if truckers are priced out of the market and our stores not restocked for a couple of days? Actually, this is a cart before the horse question. Rising oil prices is reducing the purchasing power of consumers producing a tailwind that is driving our economy deeper into recession.
Here’s where we get cut to the bone. What happens when rising unemployment pushes our economy into a depression and impacts those unable to afford food? In a free market when demand goes down production is cut back. In the case of rising oil prices, the weak are priced out the market, and resort to bicycles, or walking, or whatever. And as they do prices go down to the point where they can enter the market again. But in the case of factory farming the unit price goes up and the weak are priced out of the supermarket (soup lines and food stamps are not going to cut it). But they are not about to roll over and die. They will resort to stealing. And when stealing becomes endemic, people panic and hording becomes widespread. And when they go back for more they find the food markets under new management—Old Mother Hubbard standing at the door with her arms crossed; no more food for you. And so as people turn away from supermarkets, they turn on each other, “a war of all against all.” This is the art of war. Let the enemy destroy themselves.
And second as our economy slips deeper into recession it falls into what is known, in economic jargon, as a liquidity trap. As the Fed pushes interest rates to rock bottom and flood the banks with cash it just sets there, as recession forces consumers to cut back on spending and so firms cut back on production, investment and workers. As they do the opportunity for investments dim and venture capitalists cut back and sit on their hands and the economy freefalls.
The usual economic remedy is to resort to what is called in the trade: helicopter money—throwing out a hundred and sixty billion dollars in tax rebates and tax incentives into the wind in the vain hope that our economy will step over the trap.
The usual isn’t working. We have to put our economy on a war footing. And as we engage in economic war we set off an investment and spending multiplier effect—a ripple effect that creates new jobs and hence more spending and more investment. And as it does the Fed does what it can to provide the necessary liquidity—without any fear of long-term inflation. Scarcity is the source of inflation—it is the economic problem, and sustainable development is the answer.
On the energy front our end game will depend on stable oil prices. Yet, oil has, or will shortly reach peak production; reflected by the canaries in the futures markets reading the handwriting on the wall (and as the economy heads into recession they will reverse their bets). And even if oil hasn’t reach peak, the buffer of excess capacity is thin, and any disruption in production sends prices skyrocketing. Even so, when oil does reach peak, there is a plateau of production—how wide depends how fast we shift to renewable sustainable energy and sustainable development.
Peak oil is an historical turning point just as threatening as the rise of communist China. We have to understand that it is in our national interest to dramatically reduce our consumption of oil (even as prices drop). Our national security depends on it, as well as our international credibility. The United States, with five percent of world’s population, consumes one-quarter of the world’s supply of oil—more than China, India, Japan and Germany combined. If the rest of the world is to prosper, if our nation is to survive, we are going to have to take the lead--we have to be the agent of change. We have a narrow window of opportunity and the sash cord of rising oil prices if not arrested, will slam it shut.
Of course change is underway. Airlines, struggling to survive, are grounding planes. And drivers are restricting and altering driving habits, shifting to public transportation and turning to rail for their commutes. But unless others, those that don’t care or the affluent who remain aloof to the crisis, don’t curtail their consumption, and limit their driving and flying to essential trips, we’ll lose the war before we even get into battle.
A unfortunate, but unavoidable outcome is that cutting back on travel means some businesses, large and small, may suffer, and some workers will lose jobs, but it is a small sacrifice as we invest in sustainable enterprises that puts us on a path to economic recovery. And while for some, as they shift professions, they’ll see in a decline in their life styles, but they’ll have a job, so while they may move down, many more will move up to better jobs with better pay.
That said our first line of defense is energy. While coal provides 50 percent of our electricity its costs are rising along with those of natural gas. To fight this war we are going to need to rely on new stocks of sustainable electricity, stabilizing the price of coal and natural gas (we are at war, and if coal and natural gas industries seek to defend their self interest they serve only to weaken the war effort). This is the path to energy independence, and it’s going to require immediate and significant investment—we can’t think in terms of ten years down the road, we have to accomplish energy independence within five years. And that may be too long. But shifting to electricity means nothing unless the automakers quickly shift to producing inexpensive A to B electric cars. Or consider Air Cars that run on compressed air (if proven to be viable). If not, there is no path to energy independence and we’ll remain on the oil track—heading us away from the front lines.
To fortify our energy line we have to invest in those technologies that can be quickly be developed and deployed. On the energy front we have a choice of windmills, photovoltaic solar thermal power, deep geothermal, and so on. While not eliminating the development of any, still, we should focus on those that are the most viable and the most promising.
While it makes sense to immediately begin installing solar arrays on homes that use natural gas or oil—financed by loans or second mortgages whose monthly payment matches or reduces their monthly energy bill—it also makes sense to focus on solar thermal technology at the same time.
For example: Ausra, an up and coming entrant into the renewable energy field, have embraced the technology that has significantly reduced the costs of bringing on line base load (day and night) solar thermal energy to the point where it is becoming competitive with coal-fired and nuclear power plants. Currently they have completed an automated factory in Las Vegas that produces the necessary components for their domestic power plants—and eventually, as they spread throughout the country these components can be produced for export. The problem is that the proof is in the pudding. Yet, we have to believe in something, do something, before our economy turns to mush.
Whatever it takes, our goal is energy independence and without a sustainable supply of energy, any vision is powerless.
So said, on the consumer front we can invest in factories today where various brands share the same assembly line of robots and workers—from breakfast cereals (packaged in reusable plastic containers) to toasters, microwaves, refrigerators, computers, and so on—bringing down unit costs. And as we as do, we take it upon ourselves to produce untainted and cradle to cradle products. And while it may be improbable to compete with worker’s that barely have subsistence incomes, nonetheless, we just have to cut back on superfluous spending. Think of it in terms of organic food, you may pay more, but our nation becomes healthier (and this applies also to domestically produced steel). Here’s how we wean ourselves from China while creating new jobs.
On the agriculture front there is controlled-environmental (indoor) farms that can provide cities with a local sustainable food supply while playing a significant part in meeting the challenges of severe droughts and weather (that appears to worsening on both fronts), looming worldwide water shortages, along with rising oil costs and rising food prices.
While there are variations of CEF's, they all are pretty much based on hydroponics and tout the same economic efficiencies. They all can be located within cities or neighborhoods. They all run on electricity, require no pesticides, herbicides nor conventional fertilizers (all derived from fossil fuels). They produce crops year around, and depending on the technology, use from one-tenth to one-twentieth the water of conventional farms. They not only use less water, they can use recycled water from the surrounding communities.
One up and running venture was the phytofarm (re: Discover magazine December 1988, The Green Machine: Indoor Farming). This is a fully enclosed farm fed by artificial lighting where one acre can produce 100 times the yield of conventional farms (in the dead of winter). And while it was geared (literally) to produce leafy greens and herbs, there is practically nothing that cannot be grown indoors—albeit it would require a shift to growing some food in composted earth pots. Yet, while the project had a successful run for a number of years, in the end it lost out due to high-energy costs and closed its doors in the early 1990s. But with rising fuel costs, it becomes competitive, and we can open its doors again.
In the meantime greenhouses are up and running. And they are in the process of literally reaching new heights. Visionaries are proposing vertical farms—high rises with greenhouses stacked on one another (check out the technology on the internet). Yet they have not gotten off the ground, and so their technology remains unproven. But as venture capitalists get off their hands and get to work, this could quickly change.
And it has to change quickly. Without indoor farming the only choice for a world increasing in population while running out of oil and fresh water, is famine and death.
Here, we have to take the lead, and as we Johnny Appleseed these farms throughout the country, or economy grows as well as our confidence while taking the pressure off of conventional farms—that we’ll depend on well into the future. And consider this: While it’s O.K. to throw out money from helicopters to the people, imagine, instead of throwing billions into the wind, those tax rebates were invested in sustainable enterprises. A hundred billion dollars could have immediately funded the construction of three hundred and thirty vertical farms at a cost, at the high end, of three hundred million per building.
But investing in sustainable energy and sustainable agriculture is not going to be enough. We need a major construction boom. And it is not going to happen within the confines of urban sprawl. Nor should it. We are not addicted to oil, but to a pattern of development that is unsustainable.
To live here, cars and light trucks are a necessary fact of life. Not only a fact but are a status symbol (the bigger the better), but a fact and status that reflects our decline. Today owners of SUV’s and their light (heavy weight) truck cousins are feeling the pain at the pump and are not only upside in their loans, but are finding that their resale value have significantly dropped—they are stuck with a dinosaur or at best a lawn ornament.
But as some grieve their demise, understand they played a significant role in the depletion of our oil reserves, and now as we turn to the world for more, they are a major factor in driving up world prices, slowing down the global economy, pushing up our trade deficits while pushing the dollar to the edge of credibility. And in their production and use they produce air pollution as well as heat—pollutants that contribute significantly to global warming. And too, as they roll off of assembly lines they demand too much energy and resources for their infrastructure—and there are never enough highways. So there is a constant need to tear down homes and businesses to expand their capacity. And even as we enter and exit them, our roads are clogged. And just consider the costs of traffic lights. At the top end they cost $250,000 per intersection to regulate their flow—so, if we don’t find ourselves inching our way to work on our super-highways, we find ourselves idling away our time and our gasoline at intersections.
Sprawl is a phenomenon that survives by feeding on itself as it adds on more suburbs (and longer commutes). But since the housing crisis is in play, as we drift towards a depression few will be buying existing homes no matter if their prices do bottom out. More people will rent houses, move into smaller apartments, or move in with family and friends or rent rooms. The only new home construction here will be that of cardboard boxes (made in China) as more people lose their jobs.
Productivity is the hallmark of capitalism and the source of our prosperity. But in the case or urban sprawl prices and taxes go up while efficiency goes down. Meanwhile, as it grows, it reaches out for more water, food, energy and land. But it is the demand for land that is the primary threat as it bids up the price of real estate. The thing is, as the price of real estate went up, so did the sale price of everything, and to keep up to it was necessary for wages to go up—setting off a price/wage spiral that in itself is unsustainable. Nonetheless economists have always viewed homes and high-rises as assets—good investments. In reality they are a source of inflation driven by sprawl. And eventually, regardless of the current housing crisis, stagnating and declining wages would have brought on a similar crisis.
While economists refuse to believe that cities and their sprawling suburbs are a source of inflation, nonetheless the marketplace has been signaling all along, with high prices, for a better product. And while some cities proudly wear the sustainable label, they are among the most expensive places to live and do business. So even as they embrace indoor farming, they need to embrace the idea of competition to stabilize their cost of living.
It’s time to move beyond sprawl and shift our growing population to new cities. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t revitalize those cities on the edge, but with an expected seventy million per year population increase, we are going need a lot more cities. Cities that not only work hand in hand with nature, but do more with less. So out with old and in with the new. To do so, enlightened planners, politicians and investors are going to have to take the lead. And to a small to degree, they already have under the rubric of new urbanism. They have taken an old idea and made it new (check out Garden Cities of Tomorrow on the internet—here you will find the seeds for sustainable cities). Their plan is to reshape sprawl by building urban centers where homes and businesses are mixed within a short walk and travel is shifted to public transportation. But from here it is a short step to begin to build whole new cities (connected by railroads carrying passengers, cars, trucks, construction equipment and freight)—whose construction will ripple throughout the economy revitalizing our industrial, service, and tourist sectors (where taking the train is part of the package—while our auto infrastructure needs investment, more so does our railroad industry). Here, in the new cities, while some workers will be sending money back to their families, others become would-be homebuyers and lenders can feel confident in providing them with mortgage loans that will help finance their development. Here too there is a safe haven for those displaced by wildfires, droughts, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes.
So first these investors and developers survey our regions, our nation for a sustainable niche and inexpensive land (owned entirely by the developers—no speculators here) and begin building new cities. And as they come up on exceeding the limits of the region, we move on and build new cities in other regions. This is a long neglected vision put forward by enlightened urban planners. We can neglect it no more.
And while there are many willing architects with their plans for cities (especially those who have gone to China to show them—instead of aping and outdoing the car-choked ego-centric cities of the west, look at us we are more stupid than you—this is how cities should be built) what’s one more model?
First, however, these are sustainable city planners and the first thing they plan for is either to eliminate cars, or greatly reduce their number. And second, these architects fully embrace green building and innovative technologies.
That said, this is how I see it: clusters of neighborhoods (linked by elevated transportation arteries shared by electric vehicles, bikes, pedestrians and rapid transit systems) will form the city. These neighborhoods are large terraced multi-storied structure sheltering thousands. Here their terraces are reserved for greenhouses and homes and their centers for fully controlled-environment farms, factories, convention centers and stadiums.
So, as you walk out into your neighborhood you encounter not hallways, but wide walkways, allies and breezeways lined with schools, libraries, theaters, businesses, shops, and restaurants—all within walking distance. And when you go to the first floor, at ground level you find barns (for pigs, beef and dairy cows, and chickens that are butchered—harvested next door) opening onto natural habitant mixed with organic farms, orchards, parks, playgrounds, and golf courses.
Here, instead of sending our table and produce straps, our unwanted leftovers, dry bread, spoiled fruit to landfills, we recycled them to neighborhood barnyards or to community organic orchards and gardens.
In their development, in the short-term they create hundreds of thousand jobs as we prepare for their building, and as they rise they will provide a steady stream of employment. And as they rise, existing cities will benefit as they provide the logistical support. And as the economy reboots people again can afford vacations, venture capitalists and locals can confidently invest in local sustainable enterprises (we have more than enough casinos and theme parks) further bootstrapping their economies. So as cities rise and sprawl stabilizes those homebuilders and high-rise developers can finish their projects and become part of the solution.
Not only do sustainable cities provide a sustainable stable source of energy, food and sustainable products, not only do they more with less, not only promote the rebuilding of our industrial base but they provide the economic benefit of lower taxes (since the infrastructure is fixed, so then are taxes), lower prices and greater efficiency. And as these cities rise they provide shelter from extreme weather and as they rise worldwide they become the long-term solution to global warming. So, altogether our economy becomes more efficient and robust and the world becomes a better place for all its inhabitants.
And as it does, as we channel investments into IPO’S for those enterprises, those entrepreneurs who rise to meet the sustainable challenge, the stock markets too becomes robust and produce their most important product—taxes on capital gains. So along with ending the tax cuts for the wealthy and a cut in military spending as the world shifts from conflict to cooperation, we pay down our debt, and eventual surpluses can be used to underwrite health care and the social security system. In the long term, when cities are fully sustainable, and stock markets stabilize and decline, they will provide their citizens with health care and provide for the social security of the elderly.
Cities are also the key to stabilizing global population growth. As nations modernize and urbanize their citizens have fewer children that fall below the replacement rate. As such their populations stabilize and then somewhat decline in the long term. There is, however a problem in the short-term. As countries modernize and urbanize they create what economists term mature economies, that is, along with a decline in population there is a decline in home construction and infrastructure and so a decline in economic growth and tax revenues threatening their entitlement packages. So most industrial nations turn to immigration as an answer to maintain their economies, to keep their population stable and the social fabric tightly knit. But immigrants do not easily assimilate and have more children exceeding the replacement rate and in so doing create social stress. Especially in the United States where immigration goes beyond what is necessary to maintain a stable population—it’s betting on growth to sustain its economy. Nonetheless, immigration will remain a fact of life in the short term. In the long term, as new cities rise in their homelands, immigration will decline.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is being invaded by millions of illegal immigrants. This is a problem because politicians haven’t come up with a simple guest worker program. There’s no point in sending them back. Have them provide the necessary information, give them a work card, and let them find jobs on their own. Putting up a border fence is not the answer. What we should be doing is mending fences—on both sides. If our economy is going recover, if we are going to pursue sustainable projects, we are going to need those workers from Mexico.
And as far as closing the borders to drug dealers, it is no time (is there a right time?) to be getting high, sober up, take that money and invest in the defense of your nation. And as to terrorists, no trespassing signs, no matter how high or wide, are going to keep them out.
In the meantime, we’ll work together with our neighbors Canada and Mexico in the development of sustainable cities—utilizing our workers, our resources, and our will to provide prosperity for all North Americans.
And what works for us, can work throughout the world. The industrialized nations should form an economic coalition (the moral equivalent to war) to assist the Palestinians, the nations of Afghanistan and Pakistan (first developing sustainable food and energy projects), and other nations, in the development of new cities that in turn sustain the economies of those participating countries. And Iraq should consider forming a coalition government, take its oil wealth, while it can, build up its infrastructure and begin the construction of their new cities (separating the factions or not).
Regardless what criticism may arise, this is a war economy, and it is how we win the ideological battle--it is how we fight World War III. A war that will be led by our captains of industry—those who contribute positively to the economy in contrast to the robber barons that simply take. This is not to say that the President, Congress, the Federal Reserve, governments at all levels and the people will not have a significant role to play—it means that if our corporate CEO,s, those who focus on the bottom line and their personal wealth and those geniuses who focus on exploiting currency and financial markets don’t step up, they put the war effort at risk.
There is also something that all nations should consider: that it is in their best interest to shift to a global economy where trade is no longer a zero-sum game, but a sustainable end game where everyone wins--it's about cooperation and balancing trade. There is a huge amount of work to make the transition to would-be sustainable cities and that requires that nations with a trade surplus, who are shifting their economies (their workers) to the development of new cities, turn to those nations with a trade imbalance--an imbalance in employment--take their foreign reserves and invest in or directly trade for whatever is necessary to facilitate and expedite the building of their cities.
Certainly, development cannot exceed available resources, but given a sustainable agenda and paced development (and perhaps a simplified city design that reflects the realities of available resources) there are no market uncertainties and investors and producers can feel confident in bringing the necessary commodities to market. While the people of developing nations can feel confident that their leaders will channel their resource revenues into the development of new cities--as a condition imposed by those enlightened countries that import those resources.
Now, those jobs going to China, India and elsewhere is a good thing. Instead of a zero-sum game, instead of a world teetering on the abyss of nuclear war, we now have a global alliance for peace and sustainability.
Humankind was conceived in ignorance. What is done is done. There’s no going back. If we remain ignorant, if we seek revenge for past injustices, if we don’t seek redemption for past transgressions—well, we are just too stupid to live. Freedom, rightly understood is that it is the spirit of the mind, the advance of knowledge that allows us to hurdle the obstacles that we created in our infancy. And as we put away our childish ways, we allow history to continue and so allow the truth, the underlying of reality of everything, to will out. This is God’s will.
.
