Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: £7 BILLION banker bonuses this year - yet the poor see their benefits cut
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
In The Know |
veritas wrote:
the workers united will never be defeated ! 
Shall we ask the miners ?
or the BA cabin staff LOL ! ? |
|
In The Know |
Yes, Jim, it cannot be a controlling state as in say the old East Germany (because too many freedoms have already been given) but I do believe that they have done whatever they could to maintain a "control" basis.
Take the laws ... almost always a "state knows best" mentality.
We will take awy your rights (but you can trust us to protect you !)
Almost all Councils (democratically elected) have had their powers stripped away by the "government knows best" hierarchy. |
|
Jim |
Thanks ITK,
I would agree that New Labour were controlling, but not with the other aspects of your analysis. If it is your view that they were trying to create a dictatorship of the dispossessed I wonder what evidence you have for this?
The launching of imperial wars, the maintenance of Thatcher's curbs on the unions, and a thorough-gong programme of privatization are inconsistent with this thesis.
It is more likely that both major parties are just two branches of the same one: the business party, which functions to preserve the power and privilege of the corporate elite.
Best Wishes,
Jim |
|
In The Know |
Jim wrote:
What Marx was talking about was first a dictatorship of the dispossessed and then a dissolution of the state. The goal is that the unified body of the people should be sovereign over its own affairs.
Thanks, Jim
Isn't the staement (above) consistent with what Labour were trying to do ... control everything from above, and by doing so, "forumlate" everyone - all living in identical (council) houses, working in state factories, looked after by unions (all of who would belong to the party machine)? |
|
Jim |
Thanks ITK,
I'm not sure how to define socialism. I guess it began around the time of Marx with the perception that the free market solution which enlightenment economists like Adam Smith had hoped would produce a grand levelling equality, thus destroying the previous aristocracy, was seen to fail since it did in fact produce an aristocracy of its own: an industrial rather than a landed one.
But everything BR promoted in his last post seemed consistent with my idea of socialism.
You suggest that it may be about giving the people what is really good for them rather than what they want. The problem with this idea is that it doesn't allow "socialism" to include people power unless the people know what's good for them. Evidently, on this view, they don't. What Marx was talking about was first a dictatorship of the dispossessed and then a dissolution of the state. The goal is that the unified body of the people should be sovereign over its own affairs. This is inconsistent with the government house benevolence from above, if I can call it that, which you seem to be proposing.
But of course conservatives would say what they are doing is good for the poor. Would I call it socialism? No. But are they wrong? Not necessarily. The question remains hanging no matter what you call it.
Best Wishes,
Jim |
|
|
|
