Socialism does work

[ralis]

Thanks for that Ralis. I couldn't have framed a better reply myself. A grounding in systems theory certainly opens a whole new perspective on discussions such as this one. It pleases me greatly to know someone else on this forum is conversant with this radically different paradigm. 

 

I learned much regarding systems theory by reading, asking questions and hanging out with a group of ecologists in the Nevada desert several years ago. My career field is dependent on a knowledge of systems.

[Brian]

 

I once knew a person with an IQ of 163. He was one really self-centered MF!

That is not always the case, MH.

[Brian]

I like the Daoist perspective of cultivation of de "in ourselves, in our families and in our communities". (However I also accept and appreciate that there is much diversity in our individual needs and actions. The path of classical Daoism is not for everyone.) Along similar lines, this contribution from David Cooper's Convergence with Nature: A Daoist Perspective works very well when applied to any sort of political activism.....

 

 

It is because self-cultivation is not focused on the 'inner' rather than the 'outer' that it requires an appropriate attunement and comportment towards the natural world. Engagements with nature......help to secure the moral space – the arena in which to develop virtue – which Daoists hope to occupy. This is why the metaphor of Daoists as gardeners of the world – as cultivators of personal landscapes – is an apt one.

 

While Daoists engage with natural environments, their engagement is also a retreat – not from an 'outer' to an 'inner' world, but from a frenzied world of activity and ambition to a quieter haven. From this haven, they have no illusions about 'saving the planet'. Like one distinguished nature writer, they eschew "plans for reorganisation and reconstruction". But, also like him, they will want "to reduce somewhat the level of suffering where they encounter it" and, more generally, to serve in small, local and undramatic ways to protect and enhance the natural environments with which they engage. In doing so, they live naturally or spontaneously, for their actions are not dictated by principles and plans, but are mindful and pliant responses to the situations and contexts they encounter.

 

Daoists, then, are unlikely to be found among `eco-warriors', but they will be found tending gardens, feeding birds in winter, protecting local wildlife from clumsy combine harvesters, opposing plans for a factory farm near their villages, and encouraging their neighbours to appreciate the useful uselessness of a threatened grove of trees. If this sounds insufficiently radical, one should recall that it is a way of living that is achieved only through a deep transformation of the self.

I find resonance here. Thank you.

[Brian]

No! He is talking in regards to systems theory and in this case complex non linear dynamic systems in which the main characteristic is change and such systems are sensitive to initial conditions. So called pure capitalism would have no basis in which to function, given the myriad variables such as human behavior, planetary environment (a complex system), resources and so forth. What you are proposing is a perfect system which can never happen given the complex variables that I just stated.

By their nature, dynamic systems run quite nicely all by themselves, without any attempts at manipulation. They run quite nicely with attempts at manipulation, too. The main difference between the two conditions is that manipulated systems tend to crash before beginning a cycle of relative equilibrium states.

 

I increasingly seek, as a general rule, to avoid manipulating systems I don't understand.

[gendao]

Hitler was an avowed right wing anti-communist. Can you answer as to why?

Sibling rivalry and controlled opposition. The same reason why Jews hate Muslims, Catholics hate Baptists (yet both are Christians), & liberals & neocons agree on all the same core Zionist agendas...

"Obsessed with?" Seemed like a fair enough question to me. He was curious whether there might be a relationship between her "progressive" belief system and her relationship with her father (socialism as a replacement for an absent father figure). I debated whether to post more than the first sentence of my response and decided to answer in a bit more detail as I thought it germane.

 

You frequently ask me personal and probing questions yourself, ralis, and I usually choose to answer them with candor and sincerity even though I think your motives are generally suspect.

Exactly. I'm interested in possible psychological underpinnings beneath political persuasions. In this anonymous girl's case, I don't see a notable connection yet...

@Brian,

 

Are you going to weigh in on this situation from a few posts ago? To misrepresent what I wrote is wrong.

 

http://thedaobums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=forums§ion=findpost&pid=636248

Here is what I stated;

 

Gendao adds the term 'Socialism' which misleads others in this discussion. That is all I am concerned about.

No confusion. You ascribed certain values to a free market, and I ascribed them to Socialism.

 

Of course, these are all moot points, since these rhetorical charges were merely pretexts for "appeals to authority (mods)" to hopefully silence my dissent.

Fascism is based on authoritarianism, extreme nationalism/patriotism, the interests of the state takes precedence over the people, the use of symbolism as a rallying point, dissolution of unions and state corporate collusion to name a few points. The genesis can be seen in the authoritarian city states in Italy before WWII. This political ideology is right wing. Unless you have studied the subject in depth such as I, it is quite possible to be mislead by many revisionists.

'The Authoritarians' by Bob Altemeyer. Explains the authoritarian underpinnings of right wing extremism. I am providing this and the last few links by request of Karl. The pdf link was provided by Mr. Altemeyer.

 

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

The irony here being that your disdain for authoritarianism...is contradicted by your own continual appeal to authority on every level, from silencing dissent to logical fallacy to desiring more Big Socialist Government regulation.

All you are doing is an appeal to authority, you are unable to reason without reference to others thoughts on the subject.

Another interesting thing is how many other Socialists also tend to do that, vaguely replying with a long list of "approved" authors or videos to watch when pressed...rather than simply answering directly and succinctly in their own words and understanding. Perhaps that subjugate copypasta mindset is more suited to Socialism, than freethinking rugged individualists capable of independent thought?

Edited July 21, 2015 by gendao

[ralis]

Sibling rivalry and controlled opposition. The same reason why Jews hate Muslims, Catholics hate Baptists (yet both are Christians), & liberals & neocons agree on all the same core Zionist agendas...

Exactly. I'm interested in possible psychological underpinnings beneath political persuasions. In this anonymous girl's case, I don't see a notable connection yet...

No confusion. You ascribed certain values to a free market, and I ascribed them to Socialism.

 

Of course, these are all moot points, since these rhetorical charges were merely pretexts for "appeals to authority (mods)" to hopefully silence my dissent.

The irony here being that your disdain for authoritarianism...is contradicted by your own continual appeal to authority on every level, from silencing dissent to logical fallacy to desiring more Big Socialist Government regulation.

Another interesting thing is how many other Socialists also tend to do that, vaguely replying with a long list of "approved" authors or videos to watch when pressed...rather than simply answering directly and succinctly in their own words and understanding. Perhaps that subjugate copypasta mindset is more suited to Socialism, than freethinking rugged individualists capable of independent thought?

 

Sibling rivalry? No! That is not an answer. There are factual reasons that the Nazis hated communists and Jews. Think and research for yourself.

 

Regarding your accusations of positing fallacious arguments; arguments in which references are used to underpin a point are perfectly acceptable in any academic setting. This is hardly an academic venue, but I will always back up my arguments with facts. 

Edited July 21, 2015 by ralis

[gendao]

Regarding your accusations of positing fallacious arguments; arguments in which references are used to underpin a point are perfectly acceptable in any academic setting. This is hardly an academic venue, but I will always back up my arguments with facts. 

Supporting references would be great...but the problem is when you post references INSTEAD of a coherent argument as a cheap cop-out.  Because instead of admitting that you have no good answer, you can simply pretend you do by name-dropping and rest assured that no one with half a life is going to read through 600 pages of obscure text or watch 3 hrs of videos just to call your bluff.

[ralis]

Supporting references would be great...but the problem is when you post references INSTEAD of a coherent argument as a cheap cop-out.  Because instead of admitting that you have no good answer, you can simply pretend you do by name-dropping and rest assured that no one with half a life is going to read through 600 pages of obscure text or watch 3 hrs of videos just to call your bluff.

 

I have made coherent arguments in this thread. In particular regarding systems theory as one example. Perhaps you didn't understand the concept?

Edited July 21, 2015 by ralis

[gendao]

^ Making some coherent arguments, does not negate the times you don't as I described (false defense).

For example:

You have shown no aptitude for logical argument so it's pointless to take that path.

Fascism and socialism are cut from the same cloth, they differ only in method. If you are such a clever guy let's see you define socialism and fascism for us and then we may judge how close they are. Remember -genus and differentia- :-) let's see how well you do because you have been blowing hard about your incredible brilliance. It should be a doddle for you. I reckon 8 hours is sufficient to show us what you can do. I look forward to it.

Once you have it you will see why the bible reference is important.

Whereas 2 simple definitions in response here would have sufficed...but lacking that, you instead posted a wild goose chase:

@Karl,

My posts regarding fascism. Linked are a few references regarding my reading. BTW, I am not a mental lightweight regarding this subject or any other topic I write on this forum. If you stoop to inappropriate content toward me, you will be reported to the mods.

http://thedaobums.com/topic/22292-is-the-west-slowly-descending-into-fascism/?hl=fascism

http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Hofstadter/e/B000AP8JTE

http://www.amazon.com/Ian-Kershaw/e/B001ITX4WI

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_13?url=search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=rise+and+fall+of+the+third+reich&sprefix=rise+and+fall,stripbooks,210

So, 3 f'n BOOKS & one thread...yet still no simple definitions...

Ok, and in that referenced thread we have...

I have studied history since I was very young, although, with no formal academic training such as yourself. I do wonder if it is too late. The history of the Nazi's is probably the best to study, given that Hitler came to power at the Nuremberg rallies some 76 years ago. In general, many believe fascist regimes such as what occurred in Europe can't happen here. There seems to be a naive belief that Germany was a nation of stupid people. Far from it. Goethe, Einstein, Bach, Beethoven, Wagner et al, to name a few. No one is safe from such travesties.

Couple of recommendations.


http://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Years-Psychotherapy---Worlds-Getting/dp/0062506617/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1326729822&sr=8-11

http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Psychology-Fascism-Wilhelm-Reich/dp/0374508844/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326729950&sr=1-3

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-John-Dean/dp/B001G8WNEG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326730113&sr=8-1

Fascism always comes from the extreme political right.

4 MORE books/documents...yet more pseudointellectual chest-beating...and still no clear answers to Karl's simple question.

So at this point, someone is supposed to have tracked back & bought and read 7 books and...still not have YOUR simple response to a simple query???

Which of course doesn't exist to begin with - hence it's a wild goose chase diversion tactic.

I mean, why even have debates at all then - when we can all just post different books to read? You post your book list, I'll post mine in response...and DONE!

Edited July 21, 2015 by gendao

[Geof Nanto]

As systems theory has gained a small toehold in this at times acrimonious debate, here are some brief words on aspects of the social systems theory of Niklas Luhmann …..

 

It’s unfortunately that Luhmann’s work is little known in the US because his theory is probably the most powerful one out there right now for explaining how society works. Its radicalism is much needed. And why is that?

 

Simply put, because the dominating ideologies currently available such as socialism and capitalism still operate with the humanist vocabulary of early modernity, with all its notions of freedom, rights, recognition, the other, justice—you name it. These concepts may sound appealing, but they are theoretically shallow—for instance, with respect to understanding the social phenomena connected with the recent financial crisis. It happened because of “greed”? Is this all that the Left can offer us as an explanation? We need a radical theory so that those protesting will begin to comprehend what it is that they are protesting against, and so that they may begin to drop their moralistic jargon (which they share with the Republicans, by the way).

 

In his 1997 essay “Globalization or World Society? How to Conceive of Modern Society?” Luhmann already described the “new centrality of international financial markets; the corresponding marginalization of production, labour, and trade; and the transfer of economic security from real assets and first-rate debtors to speculation itself,” which created an economy focusing on “financial products” rather than goods and undermined traditional economic couplings with, for instance, infrastructure, means of production, or the legal system. Luhmann understood that the “volatility of the financial market with its new derivative instruments for simultaneously maximizing security and risk with unpredictable effects” had led to the following situation: “He who tries to maintain his property will lose his fortune, and he who tries to maintain and increase his wealth will have to change his investments one day to the next. He can either use new derivative instruments or trust some of the many funds that do this for him.” For Luhmann all this cannot be explained on the basis of the traditional vocabulary of “exploitation” or tackled with ethical appeals.

 

What we need is a radical departure from seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and nineteenth-century thought, and the guts to look into the mirror without old wigs and fancy dresses that show us in all our assumed human dignity and moral beauty. Most disappointingly, in the course of the “Dialectics of Enlightenment,” the radical options that were once available, like Marxism and pure capitalism, have now become the opium of the bourgeoisie. Luhmann’s theory is “radical” in the sense that it provides an entirely new framework for understanding how global society operates on a basic level, how social complexity emerges, how we are immersed in a relentless matrix of communication that has swallowed us and that provides us with a variety of comfort and illusions. Marx had meticulously and coldly described how the capitalist mode of production had shaped a society of industrialist production of goods and, in line with that, a merciless dictatorship of money. Luhmann, equalling Marx in meticulousness and coldness, describes how, in “postindustrial” times, communication systems have taken over and allow for a rich variety of modes of “exchange,” in which any claim for human control or for “making a difference” that the Left  hope for must seem absurd.

 

If society actually evolves, and this is one of Luhmann’s most basic premises, then it cannot be steered. The main difference between evolutionism and creationism is that the latter believes in “intelligent design” and “guidance from above.” Evolutionism, however, does not. Unfortunately, the illusion of intelligent design and guidance from above still dominates “post-enlightenment” social theory, only in a secularized version. Once this was the job of God and His helpers on earth. Now the helpers claim that they can do the job alone. But this is not how the real world has ever operated. Perhaps we should finally liberate ourselves from the liberal premises that we can determine basically whatsoever on the basis of our “free will.” The free will and the free market are specters that still haunt contemporary society. To exorcise them, a little radicalism may be needed, and this will imply, as was the case with Marx, a radical departure from the values and ideas of bourgeois moralists, leading far beyond what is currently offered by  Left-wing or Right-wing ideologies.

 

We do not need to despair, however. Just as we survived the insights of not being at the center of the universe, of not being the crown of creation, and of not being the master of our unconscious drives and social constraints, we can also survive Luhmann’s sociological insult. The sociological insult finally liberates us from the illusion that we can, and therefore must, control society (or communication). It may be at first disappointing to let go of illusions of control and controllability, but it can turn out to be a relief. In a surprising turn, Luhmann offers us a new form of radical theory that shares some commonality with classical Daoism and thus enables us to find a degree of personal tranquility in the midst of the follies and the frenzy of a globalized world.

 

(Modified version of Hans-Georg Moeller’s  post at……….http://www.cupblog.org/?p=4880 )

Edited July 21, 2015 by Yueya

[thelerner]

It's ok I'm going outside to shoot myself so no need to troll any more.

I think I'll join u.  The whole thread Godwins law gone Gangum

and i don't do that dance.

[Karl]

As systems theory has gained a small toehold in this at times acrimonious debate, here are some brief words on aspects of the social systems theory of Niklas Luhmann …..

 

It’s unfortunately that Luhmann’s work is little known in the US because his theory is probably the most powerful one out there right now for explaining how society works. Its radicalism is much needed. And why is that?

 

Simply put, because the dominating ideologies currently available such as socialism and capitalism still operate with the humanist vocabulary of early modernity, with all its notions of freedom, rights, recognition, the other, justice—you name it. These concepts may sound appealing, but they are theoretically shallow—for instance, with respect to understanding the social phenomena connected with the recent financial crisis. It happened because of “greed”? Is this all that the Left can offer us as an explanation? We need a radical theory so that those protesting will begin to comprehend what it is that they are protesting against, and so that they may begin to drop their moralistic jargon (which they share with the Republicans, by the way).

 

In his 1997 essay “Globalization or World Society? How to Conceive of Modern Society?” Luhmann already described the “new centrality of international financial markets; the corresponding marginalization of production, labour, and trade; and the transfer of economic security from real assets and first-rate debtors to speculation itself,” which created an economy focusing on “financial products” rather than goods and undermined traditional economic couplings with, for instance, infrastructure, means of production, or the legal system. Luhmann understood that the “volatility of the financial market with its new derivative instruments for simultaneously maximizing security and risk with unpredictable effects” had led to the following situation: “He who tries to maintain his property will lose his fortune, and he who tries to maintain and increase his wealth will have to change his investments one day to the next. He can either use new derivative instruments or trust some of the many funds that do this for him.” For Luhmann all this cannot be explained on the basis of the traditional vocabulary of “exploitation” or tackled with ethical appeals.

 

What we need is a radical departure from seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and nineteenth-century thought, and the guts to look into the mirror without old wigs and fancy dresses that show us in all our assumed human dignity and moral beauty. Most disappointingly, in the course of the “Dialectics of Enlightenment,” the radical options that were once available, like Marxism and pure capitalism, have now become the opium of the bourgeoisie. Luhmann’s theory is “radical” in the sense that it provides an entirely new framework for understanding how global society operates on a basic level, how social complexity emerges, how we are immersed in a relentless matrix of communication that has swallowed us and that provides us with a variety of comfort and illusions. Marx had meticulously and coldly described how the capitalist mode of production had shaped a society of industrialist production of goods and, in line with that, a merciless dictatorship of money. Luhmann, equalling Marx in meticulousness and coldness, describes how, in “postindustrial” times, communication systems have taken over and allow for a rich variety of modes of “exchange,” in which any claim for human control or for “making a difference” that the Left  hope for must seem absurd.

 

If society actually evolves, and this is one of Luhmann’s most basic premises, then it cannot be steered. The main difference between evolutionism and creationism is that the latter believes in “intelligent design” and “guidance from above.” Evolutionism, however, does not. Unfortunately, the illusion of intelligent design and guidance from above still dominates “post-enlightenment” social theory, only in a secularized version. Once this was the job of God and His helpers on earth. Now the helpers claim that they can do the job alone. But this is not how the real world has ever operated. Perhaps we should finally liberate ourselves from the liberal premises that we can determine basically whatsoever on the basis of our “free will.” The free will and the free market are specters that still haunt contemporary society. To exorcise them, a little radicalism may be needed, and this will imply, as was the case with Marx, a radical departure from the values and ideas of bourgeois moralists, leading far beyond what is currently offered by  Left-wing or Right-wing ideologies.

 

We do not need to despair, however. Just as we survived the insights of not being at the center of the universe, of not being the crown of creation, and of not being the master of our unconscious drives and social constraints, we can also survive Luhmann’s sociological insult. The sociological insult finally liberates us from the illusion that we can, and therefore must, control society (or communication). It may be at first disappointing to let go of illusions of control and controllability, but it can turn out to be a relief. In a surprising turn, Luhmann offers us a new form of radical theory that shares some commonality with classical Daoism and thus enables us to find a degree of personal tranquility in the midst of the follies and the frenzy of a globalized world.

 

(Modified version of Hans-Georg Moeller’s  post at……….http://www.cupblog.org/?p=4880 )

 

In a nutshell. This is all I have been saying all along. There are realities that underpin everything and they are what we should strive for. They are the truth within ourselves and completely known to us, but we have chosen to construct our own realities. This is clear if I take an example I have used previously.

 

The taste of sweetness is not in the fruit.

Yet the fruit is real. The chemicals which connect with our senses are real

Our senses are real.

The thought ' this fruit is sweet' is also real-but it is a created reality despite being reality.

 

It's a really subtle thing, it hovers on the edge of understanding because it is difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins. Our are created realities manifesting yet another created reality. How then shall we know what it truly real from that we have created as real ?

 

This is the rope and the snake analogy that many gurus talk about. The aim is to define actual reality from created reality. From the position of self this is easy, but far harder to explain-like being thrown into a foreign country and being unable to speak the language.

 

However, unlike you, I don't believe this is just going to happen. I think we are in grave danger of having allowed our false realities to be mistaken for reality itself and that knot cannot be undone without individual effort. It means that everyone must wake up to this on their own and have the desire to do so. No one can make it happen for anyone else other than themselves. There is no authority, government or system that can do it and until ALL are awake then effectively none are awake. As long as but one remains it is incomplete. I think we can wipe ourselves off the face of the planet, become extinct. I do not grieve for that, but it seems a wasted opportunity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Spotless]

It is an opportune time - if one can catch oneself in a moment when the Baffoon is wearing a hat and has set "your" positions in stone and is posturing on your behalf.

 

Our positions "that have taken hold of us" are the self medication that keeps us sleeping.

 

If you find discs revolving in your head regarding this chatter the discs are not yours and the player is illusion.

 

If a rebuff comes to the mind of this it is not because it has substance to argue with but that it has everything to lose and nothing to gain by You seeing the charade.

 

If you can grab it during the inertia - somehow find the shock that is necessary to turn the tempest on itself - the stillness in the eye of it is you.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Spotless

[Marblehead]

My measured IQ is in the upper 1%. I guess that is why some of the bums here don't like me.   I took the MENSA test, but I do the whole thing backwards and still qualify. 

My time in the Army taught me to feel comfortable speaking with anyone of any education level.  When in Rome, and all that stuff.  Some times I find it necessary to keep my mouth shut and that's really hard, I can honestly tell you that.

[Marblehead]

That is not always the case, MH.

Of course it's not.  I was speaking only of this one individual.

[Brian]

Of course it's not.  I was speaking only of this one individual.

I'll agree, though, that this is certainly the tendency.

[ralis]

I think I'll join u.  The whole thread Godwins law gone Gangum

and i don't do that dance.

 

I was responding to Karl's request to define fascism and I used examples that I felt were appropriate. Godwin's law is more about comparison as well as accusations. However, providing references to discuss how fascism evolves, is not a violation of this so called law.

[Apech]

I was responding to Karl's request to define fascism and I used examples that I felt were appropriate. Godwin's law is more about comparison as well as accusations. However, providing references to discuss how fascism evolves, is not a violation of this so called law.

 

 

Ralis,

 

I'm going to award you a medal.  Even though I started this thread I was quickly worn down by the low level of knowledge masquerading as informed opinion from 'the others'.  Well done.

[ralis]

Ralis,

 

I'm going to award you a medal.  Even though I started this thread I was quickly worn down by the low level of knowledge masquerading as informed opinion from 'the others'.  Well done.

 

I did my best in providing some reference material with a very generalized overview, but was not well received by some here.

 

Thanks!

[ralis]

@Apech,

 

I hope you will continue with your discussion of European Socialism. That is of great interest to me!

[ralis]

^ Making some coherent arguments, does not negate the times you don't as I described (false defense).

 

For example:

Whereas 2 simple definitions in response here would have sufficed...but lacking that, you instead posted a wild goose chase:

So, 3 f'n BOOKS & one thread...yet still no simple definitions...

 

Ok, and in that referenced thread we have...

4 MORE books/documents...yet more pseudointellectual chest-beating...and still no clear answers to Karl's simple question.

 

So at this point, someone is supposed to have tracked back & bought and read 7 books and...still not have YOUR simple response to a simple query???

 

Which of course doesn't exist to begin with - hence it's a wild goose chase diversion tactic.

 

I mean, why even have debates at all then - when we can all just post different books to read? You post your book list, I'll post mine in response...and DONE!

 

I did provide a generalized answer to Karl's question in which I provided reference material for further reading. Yet he insists that historical documents are a matter of opinion. The references that I provided are what I have read/studied and questioned. Moreover, I am not willing to think for Karl or anyone including you who will not put in the time or effort to read historical documents in a critical manner and discuss the subject at hand. I seriously doubt you have conducted any serious research on your own in regards to fascism or the root cause of. Instead you are most likely a fan of the Alex Jones club in which conspiracies abound with very little basis in reality.

[Apech]

@Apech,

 

I hope you will continue with your discussion of European Socialism. That is of great interest to me!

 

 

Well its interesting that in the UK at least, the Labour party which traditionally is the socialist party seems to have completely abandoned its socialist roots.  In the eighties when it was up against Thatcherism it went through internal modernisation which involved abandoning what was called Clause 4.  This clause committed them to nationalization of the 'crowning heights' of the economy.  In other words proper early 20 century state run industry.  I think they had realised this was making them unelectable since everyone nowadays is some version of a middle of the road capitalist/conservative.  Modernising in this way and presenting themselves as good managers with sound understanding of market economics (which they did have) was a kind fo rebranding which made them electable.  After a period what followed were the unprecedented three consecutive election victories by so called 'New Labour' under Tony Blair.  So the socialist had done what many individual socialists do - that is reinvent themselves as management experts through planned project management techniques, target driven expenditure and private/public partnerships to draw inward investment into education and healthcare.

 

Now in the post Blair years the party sung back to the left a little but because of this mentality of the priority being to win elections and get into office, all the leading people in the Labour party spout the same kind of dreary management speak and so on.  Uniquely now the speaker in my first video Jeremy Corbin who is running to be leader actually still believes in socialist principles.  It is refreshing to hear - i.e. someone actually saying what they really think instead of what a focus groups has told them we want to hear.  So all the others on here, Brain and Karl and so on, will be very pleased to hear that socialism is at a very low ebb in Britain.

[Chang]

Well its interesting that in the UK at least, the Labour party which traditionally is the socialist party seems to have completely abandoned its socialist roots.  In the eighties when it was up against Thatcherism it went through internal modernisation which involved abandoning what was called Clause 4.  This clause committed them to nationalization of the 'crowning heights' of the economy.  In other words proper early 20 century state run industry.  I think they had realised this was making them unelectable since everyone nowadays is some version of a middle of the road capitalist/conservative.  Modernising in this way and presenting themselves as good managers with sound understanding of market economics (which they did have) was a kind fo rebranding which made them electable.  After a period what followed were the unprecedented three consecutive election victories by so called 'New Labour' under Tony Blair.  So the socialist had done what many individual socialists do - that is reinvent themselves as management experts through planned project management techniques, target driven expenditure and private/public partnerships to draw inward investment into education and healthcare.

 

Now in the post Blair years the party sung back to the left a little but because of this mentality of the priority being to win elections and get into office, all the leading people in the Labour party spout the same kind of dreary management speak and so on.  Uniquely now the speaker in my first video Jeremy Corbin who is running to be leader actually still believes in socialist principles.  It is refreshing to hear - i.e. someone actually saying what they really think instead of what a focus groups has told them we want to hear.  So all the others on here, Brain and Karl and so on, will be very pleased to hear that socialism is at a very low ebb in Britain.

 

They certainly rebranded themselves under New Labour and gave the impression of being a safe pair of hands to run the UK economy. It was, alas, simply smoke and mirrors and like all Socialist Governments it ended in tears. You may well remember their 1997 election song "Things Can Only Get Better."

 

Well they dindn't did they?

 

As regards the Labour Leadership election I was of the opinion that it would be best for the country for Corbyn to win as he would make Labour completely un electable. I now believe that this end would be best served by Yvette Cooper becoming the party leader. Her earnestness make one feel decidedly queasy.

[ralis]

Well its interesting that in the UK at least, the Labour party which traditionally is the socialist party seems to have completely abandoned its socialist roots.  In the eighties when it was up against Thatcherism it went through internal modernisation which involved abandoning what was called Clause 4.  This clause committed them to nationalization of the 'crowning heights' of the economy.  In other words proper early 20 century state run industry.  I think they had realised this was making them unelectable since everyone nowadays is some version of a middle of the road capitalist/conservative.  Modernising in this way and presenting themselves as good managers with sound understanding of market economics (which they did have) was a kind fo rebranding which made them electable.  After a period what followed were the unprecedented three consecutive election victories by so called 'New Labour' under Tony Blair.  So the socialist had done what many individual socialists do - that is reinvent themselves as management experts through planned project management techniques, target driven expenditure and private/public partnerships to draw inward investment into education and healthcare.

 

Now in the post Blair years the party sung back to the left a little but because of this mentality of the priority being to win elections and get into office, all the leading people in the Labour party spout the same kind of dreary management speak and so on.  Uniquely now the speaker in my first video Jeremy Corbin who is running to be leader actually still believes in socialist principles.  It is refreshing to hear - i.e. someone actually saying what they really think instead of what a focus groups has told them we want to hear.  So all the others on here, Brain and Karl and so on, will be very pleased to hear that socialism is at a very low ebb in Britain.

 

From my understanding, Thatcher was listening to the Neoliberals such as Milton Friedman, Robert Mundell and others that were promoting a more so called free market, privatization of governmental services, less regulation and tax cuts for the wealthy. Is this how it played out?

[Apech]

From my understanding, Thatcher was listening to the Neoliberals such as Milton Friedman, Robert Mundell and others that were promoting a more so called free market, privatization of governmental services, less regulation and tax cuts for the wealthy. Is this how it played out?

 

 

Yes more or less.