Thatcher and Socialist Sentiment

maybenot said:
First time I've created a thread so I fully expect to have a bleeding anus within a few posts, but in the meantime I wonder who else here has noticed the socialist bleating coming out of the UK. I'm from there originally and it scares the hell out of me. The kind of comments I see on Facebook and in newspapers reminds me why I left. Europe in general is even worse, but the UK seems to be heading down the same path.

Many people in the UK have some variation on the following beliefs:

If you're successful you were lucky (i.e. I could have done it if I'd been lucky like you)
If you're successful you owe society because you couldn't have done it without it (i.e. the obese mother of 10 who had the exact same society - chances - and who does nothing but suck the life out of it is somehow owed money by the woman who took risks and made something out of her life)
If you're successful and weren't lucky you must have stolen it, and therefore you don't deserve it.

And you feel it, in the street, in a cafe, wherever. 'Look at that guy, let's bring him down a bit the bastard... I wish I had that, I wish I had tried harder and not been a fucking loser my whole life.'

Thatcher wasn't perfect, but she had more balls, and sense, than any of these pussies we have now in all the goddamn 'political' parties in the UK.

I know I know, cool starry brah

But at least here there are plenty of people who aren't a bunch of bleating whinos draining whatever they can from everyone else in a race to the bottom. Main reason I signed up.
Click to expand...

People worship wealth now more than ever in the UK. Billionaires and the "rich" are idolised, especially the media. Try opening the evening standard in the tube and count the number of gushing stories about billionaires and oligarchs.

There are loads of lazy losers too of course.
 


ly2 from WF said:
OP is a reformed eurofag.

eurofag-1.png
Click to expand...

Are those the democracy bombs?
 
maybenot said:
First time I've created a thread so I fully expect to have a bleeding anus within a few posts, but in the meantime I wonder who else here has noticed the socialist bleating coming out of the UK. I'm from there originally and it scares the hell out of me. The kind of comments I see on Facebook and in newspapers reminds me why I left. Europe in general is even worse, but the UK seems to be heading down the same path.

Many people in the UK have some variation on the following beliefs:

If you're successful you were lucky (i.e. I could have done it if I'd been lucky like you)
If you're successful you owe society because you couldn't have done it without it (i.e. the obese mother of 10 who had the exact same society - chances - and who does nothing but suck the life out of it is somehow owed money by the woman who took risks and made something out of her life)
If you're successful and weren't lucky you must have stolen it, and therefore you don't deserve it.

And you feel it, in the street, in a cafe, wherever. 'Look at that guy, let's bring him down a bit the bastard... I wish I had that, I wish I had tried harder and not been a fucking loser my whole life.'

Thatcher wasn't perfect, but she had more balls, and sense, than any of these pussies we have now in all the goddamn 'political' parties in the UK.

I know I know, cool starry brah

But at least here there are plenty of people who aren't a bunch of bleating whinos draining whatever they can from everyone else in a race to the bottom. Main reason I signed up.
Click to expand...


Mrs T was exactly what the country needed at that time. The UK was practically ungovernable by the late 1970s due to the power of Trade Unions. She turned that around. There was a huge social cost but I don't think was wholly to blame for that aspect.
 
People focus ONLY on economics - but there are lots of aspects of governing that are nothing to do with economics at all - and those are the bits people are complaining about.

For example, Thatcher was a control freak. She hated the idea that local elected officials were doing things she personally didn't want them to - and of course if you have genuine local democracy you are going to get differences all over the place because local populations vary from region to region and have different views, and hence vote for different things.

She passed draconian legislation to remove power from the local authorities and pull it into the centre. She even abolished the authority that was running London, so for a fifteen year period London had no Mayor and no local authority, and was slowly falling apart, till Blair gave power back when he became PM and created the London Assembly plus office of Mayor.

But despite some powers flowing back, Britain is still the most centralised state in the developed world, thanks to Thatcher. Because once power flows to the centre, whoever occupies that space will seek to hold onto it.

How would American Thatcher fans like it if your President decided that there was too much local government, and simply abolished it, concentrating power in his hands. For example, why should New York have it's own mayor and legislature, when they could be going cap in hand to the President to ask for permission to do things?

Still think that's OK, sort of "I agree with the economics, so they're allowed to do all the other crazy stuff" - or would you be upset?
 
Everything that has to do with governing has to do with economics. Economics is basically the science of human action in a social context.

There is no such thing as a genuine democracy.

Democracy is 6 people siding with me against four people who don't like my ideas to do what we want, or we use force against them. That's all democracy is. Mob rule. It's considered legitimate because the losers get to cast a losing vote in the process, and somehow this sanctifies it.

Without a doubt, there was plenty to revile about Thatcher, she was after all a politician, which means she was a professional liar and someone who sought power over other human beings.

But don't for a minute think Tony Blair, or any other politician was marginally better. When it comes to politicians, it's bad, badder and worse.
 
guerilla said:
But don't for a minute think Tony Blair, or any other politician was marginally better. When it comes to politicians, it's bad, badder and worse.
Click to expand...

Oh, I've no illusions about Blair or other politicians.

Pretty much all the good things Blair did occurred when he was first elected, and still full of idealism. Then as the seductiveness of power captured him, he began to change.

For example, he passed a Freedom of Information Act right at the start when he got into office that people had been wanting for ages, to make the famously secretive British state more transparent. Then five years later, he started regretting it, and wanted to repeal his own legislation but couldn't because by then the voters were absolutely loving getting all the dirt about what the government was actually up to.

Regarding Thatcher - I was simply making the point that those who criticise her have a right to do so. Labelling local democracy (or states rights or whatever people call it around the world) as "socialism" and calling people who advocate it losers, just to shut the argument down, is lame. The point when people stop criticising is the point of maximum danger when people in love with power move to take advantage.
 
teatree said:
Oh, I've no illusions about Blair or other politicians.

Pretty much all the good things Blair did occurred when he was first elected, and still full of idealism. Then as the seductiveness of power captured him, he began to change.

For example, he passed a Freedom of Information Act right at the start when he got into office that people had been wanting for ages, to make the famously secretive British state more transparent. Then five years later, he started regretting it, and wanted to repeal his own legislation but couldn't because by then the voters were absolutely loving getting all the dirt about what the government was actually up to.

Regarding Thatcher - I was simply making the point that those who criticise her have a right to do so. Labelling local democracy (or states rights or whatever people call it around the world) as "socialism" and calling people who advocate it losers, just to shut the argument down, is lame. The point when people stop criticising is the point of maximum danger when people in love with power move to take advantage.
Click to expand...

I agree that criticism is important, in fact essential. But criticizing Thatcher has been going on decades - what gets me is that when she dies all the scum comes out of the woodwork and starts outright bashing her. My points were not about local democracy and you may well be right on that (I don't know enough to say). They were rather about people's general socialist mentality - and this is what gives rise to all this spiteful commentary that we see following her death.

As for Blair, he had no trouble shutting down the SFO investigation into the BAE slush fund... for 'national security'. But despite everything else, what really gets me about him is that after going into the second gulf war on bullshit evidence and thereafter being partially responsibly for the deaths of thousands of civilians and troops, he went on to become "Middle East Peace Envoy", in charge of "reconciliation in the area".

That single fact almost triggered my gag reflex the first time I read it. What kind of fucked up world is this for that to happen?
 
lukep said:
It feels so dirty watching a noob make his first homo joke on here... Like I'm part of a seriously corrupted culture and won't step up to stop it. ;)
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I've been making homo jokes since I was in diapers. Sometimes I wonder if I should just stop joking and whip it out for real.
 
guerilla said:
Everything that has to do with governing has to do with economics. Economics is basically the science of human action in a social context.

There is no such thing as a genuine democracy.

Democracy is 6 people siding with me against four people who don't like my ideas to do what we want, or we use force against them. That's all democracy is. Mob rule. It's considered legitimate because the losers get to cast a losing vote in the process, and somehow this sanctifies it.

Without a doubt, there was plenty to revile about Thatcher, she was after all a politician, which means she was a professional liar and someone who sought power over other human beings.

But don't for a minute think Tony Blair, or any other politician was marginally better. When it comes to politicians, it's bad, badder and worse.
Click to expand...

I remember having a conversation with some family members a while back, and I instinctively felt there was something wrong with this idea of you 6 get to tell me 4 what to do, with the threat of force. They quickly put me down, and it's hard to argue with family as many of you probably know. The bit that I still struggle with is that I don't have enough experience or understanding to see clearly how an alternative could work - so I can't discuss it properly with others. I feel lucky enough that I don't have to stay in a given democracy, so I guess in my case if I'm in the minority I just leave... which is pretty much what I've done. But of course I'll have the same problem, sometime, somewhere else, unless I can figure something better out.
 
maybenot said:
I remember having a conversation with some family members a while back, and I instinctively felt there was something wrong with this idea of you 6 get to tell me 4 what to do, with the threat of force. They quickly put me down, and it's hard to argue with family as many of you probably know. The bit that I still struggle with is that I don't have enough experience or understanding to see clearly how an alternative could work - so I can't discuss it properly with others. I feel lucky enough that I don't have to stay in a given democracy, so I guess in my case if I'm in the minority I just leave... which is pretty much what I've done. But of course I'll have the same problem, sometime, somewhere else, unless I can figure something better out.
Click to expand...

The problem with socialists is they challenge you questioning how the alternative could possibly work at the same time believing system we are in already works.

Start asking them how their socialism solves problems instead of waiting for them asking you.
 
tomaszjot said:
The problem with socialists is they challenge you questioning how the alternative could possibly work at the same time believing system we are in already works.

Start asking them how their socialism solves problems instead of waiting for them asking you.
Click to expand...

P.S Your avatar is giving me nightmares. Who the hell is that!
 
This thread and your posts seem way too contrived. It's like you've studied this boards' sentiments and distilled your own shitty take on them. Well done.

I don't know what kind of people you socialise with or where you've got those sweeping generalisations from. Oh, and if anything, the media coverage has been a bit of a love in of Thatcher, not the other way round. Out of interest, where do you stand on free health care?
 
maybenot said:
As for Blair, he had no trouble shutting down the SFO investigation into the BAE slush fund... for 'national security'. But despite everything else, what really gets me about him is that after going into the second gulf war on bullshit evidence and thereafter being partially responsibly for the deaths of thousands of civilians and troops, he went on to become "Middle East Peace Envoy", in charge of "reconciliation in the area".

That single fact almost triggered my gag reflex the first time I read it. What kind of fucked up world is this for that to happen?
Click to expand...

Yes well, the Blair decision on the BAE slush fund investigation came in 2006 (towards the end of his regime when his early idealism was long gone), and the investigation was about events in 1985 - you know Thatcher's time. In fact the deal involved her son Mark, who made 21 million out of it, which was not chump change in the mid-1980's - see here.

You'll be pleased to know that it was the "socialists" who protested at Blair's decision on the BAE investigation (the people from the other wing were silent). That's two things you now agree with "the left" on, local democracy and BAE slush funds! Actually make it three if you count Iraq because it was the left wingers who marched against it and it was Labour MPs who rebelled against it, if the Tories had voted with them, the whole thing would have been stopped.

Do you see the problem with bandying terms like "people with a socialist mentality" about? What does that mean exactly? I'm sure left-wing British advocates of local democracy would be surprised to find that right wing American Republicans think the exact same way. Does that make the Brits right-wing or those Repubs "socialist"? Or how about leave the labels aside and just consider that two groups came to the same conclusion from different directions?

You can get yourself into a lot of trouble if you pre-label people before you've heard their argument and are then forced to oppose them no how reasonable they are. Did we end up in Iraq because discussion was shut down with "only people with a socialist mentality oppose it"? In other words was the argument dismissed because of who was saying it rather than what was being said?

In our current society the only people enjoying socialism in the literal sense of the word, are the bankers. But people sure like to fling the term about to shut down discussion of everything else.
 
I have yet to meet more than a couple handfuls of people online who aren't socialists of some sort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom