Same for me, over in the UK. I still strongly believe in that set of values that once were the core of post-2nd-WW progressive socialism - and which brought many good things to Western society. Imperfect but at its heart were transparency in government, freedom of speech, education for all, trade union rights, social services providing h…
Same for me, over in the UK. I still strongly believe in that set of values that once were the core of post-2nd-WW progressive socialism - and which brought many good things to Western society. Imperfect but at its heart were transparency in government, freedom of speech, education for all, trade union rights, social services providing health and welfare for those in need etc. At a certain point in history this value set was pitched against a perceived heartlessness in conservatism. I still belong there politically but on neither side of the pond is there a party which enshrine those old-school leftist views any longer.
I think what you and Matt can't seem to understand is your idealized version of "post 2nd WW progressive socialism" inevitably leads to where we are now. Matt's ending comment was quite telling.
"Where do these people come from, and how did they come to be so entitled?"
Left wing educational institutions and progressive politics carry most of the blame.
Bit of a head-scratcher, that! For one thing, I have not idealised post-war societal progress, such as it has been, in the least - As I said, it was/ is imperfect. ANY social or political model is flawed and imperfect. That's humanity for you. What can be said is that (very broad generalisation....) much of the progress made post-war emanated from governments to an almost passable degree answering to, and represented by, a broad electorate. In the UK, we had a swathe of politicians over several governments, both in power and opposition, whose ethics were characteristically "leftist" in seeking and often, incrementally, achieving a better and more egalitarian society. The decline in the UK, demonstrably, began when ultra-right-wing Margaret Thatcher declared war on the working classes and our welfare state. Many caveats to the above, but this isn't an essay.
Lastly, taking a pop at "left wing educational institutions and and progressive politics" is an off-target generalisation. The present corrupt and sanctimonious nature of our governments has little to do with left- or right-wing politics. It has do do with all governments being hijacked by military and corporate interests, and that includes the despicable right-wing government over here. Not that the Labour Party when they (most likely) come to power will be any better. And this leaves a huge number of the old-school progressive lefties, of which I'm one, devastated and politically homeless (as the cliché goes). All educational institutions are now grooming grounds for the new "culture" of corruption and censorship, and the decline in no way, historically or logically, derives from the efforts of good people to improve the lot of their fellow humans. Sorry, but that's just nonsense!
Many would say the decline in the UK started with the drive towards a "more egalitarian" society and that Thatcher's election was the antidote to decades of decline. Old school progressive lefties who truly believe in transparency and equality probably do feel politically homeless. Once again, however, the current state of affairs is the logical end game from a progressive desire for government to do more and take a larger role in the day to day affairs of its citizens. I think the misguided "efforts of good people to improve the lot of their fellow humans" is exactly how we get the ridiculous Irish politicians who want to censor more in the name of protecting the public. Absurd.
Of course there are many who supported Thatcher, indeed still support what she did. But that she heralded the end of decades of decline is stretching things a bit! Sure, we had trade unions who had become too cocksure and dominant, not recognising the simple fact that screwing companies for every penny in wage increases, striking without consultation and all the other malpractices of the time would lead to the bankruptcy of their employers. The problem there was our industrial revolution heritage: the "us and them" of management and workers. And the solution, which worked well in other European countries, was much earlier on to break down the class-based divisions, introduce better training, education and managerial inclusiveness of the work-force; and a number of - let's avoid the words "liberal" or "socialist" which clearly vex you 😩 - socially conscious measures. So OK, the old girl inherited a tricky problem. But she was someone who hadn't a clue about industry or manufacturing, and instead of working to bring the unions on-side and revolutionise our industrial base, she set out to destroy it. Her vision of a UK work-force selling insurance policies and beef burgers worked, and now, traceable to her, we have a deeply impoverished manufacturing base. [Made worse more recently by Brexit, it's true, which was an impressive display of self-destructiveness by the UK populace. Imperfect though the EC is, we had considerable influence within the 27, far more than with the much-vaunted "sovereignty", which is now accelerating the erosion of our economy. 60% approx. of our trade both ways was with the EC, our neighbours, and we've put a bureaucratic minefield in the way of that which is having devastating consequences.]
But I digress. There were many, many left-wing politicians from earlier times who would abhor what is happening now in the perverted name of "liberalism" - anathema to the principles of decency they (very broadly speaking) held. That's where so many of us feel WE haven't changed, but the "liberal" tide has swirled beyond us.
You speak of the "desire for government to do more and take a larger role in the day to day affairs of its citizens". When we look at the drive to control what we think, then yes, this is perfectly abhorrent and indeed absurd. But this is completely different from state funding, which has has been receding since Thatcher, of our health services, the railways, our education system, or our environmental and river authorities, and so-on. Again, an imperfect system, but there is no evidence at all that the galloping de-funding and/or privatisation of those sectors has brought improvement - far from it. Management for profit and austerity are each arguably a significant part of much social and structural erosion over here since Maggie - an essay in itself. The efforts of those who saw societal benefit in enhancing all those sectors, and improving the health and lives of all, were hardly what led to where we are now.
To follow your logic, if, in the sense I'm speaking of, the "efforts of good people to improve the lot of their fellow humans" can only lead to the insanity of recent Irish, European, British (etc., etc) legislation, then we may as well all give up on aiming for increased fairness and equality in society. But what then is the alternative to that struggle?
The old-time definition of socialism was "the means of production owned and controlled by the workers, or the community in general." In other words, any workers' cooperative. I don't see anything inevitable about the evolution of such projects into fascism or whatever you're getting at above. What you may be getting at is the development of liberalism into the politics of war'n'welfare characteristic of Otto von Bismarck and Lyndon Johnson. Liberalism is not socialism; it's a form of capitalism.
To add to DH's response below, I'd like to also share this prescient "prediction", thought to come from Franklyn:
"When the people discover they can vote themselves money [welfare], that will herald the end of the republic."
And here is a more thorough rebuke of the concept:
'Bread and Circuses' is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader – the barbarians enter Rome." - Robert A. Heinlein
The problem is even worse, however, and much to the point of progressive socialist types too; industry has learned, and to much greater effect, how to pilfer from the public's money. Yet, they cannot see that the mere ability of the state to do so, is the problem.
Personally, it's the exact same problem with the idea of censoring speech. When we ask, who then will decide what speech is acceptable and what is not, "old school lefties" are able to see the dilemma, but I pose the same the question to "old school lefties"; when it comes to doling out the public's money, who then decides to whom and for how much, should the public share their money? Once that power was granted, what we see now was inevitable.
Yes. Only the stockholding class should be allowed to use the government to enrich themselves! Crooked trade deals. Stimulating the economy to inflate asset values more than workers' income. Lockdowns that shut down millions of small businesses and transferred trillions of dollars to the stockholding class.
Am I to infer you think that's what I've said above? Just the opposite. Albeit, it wasn't written very well - rather clunky:
"The problem is even worse, however, and much to the point of progressive socialist types too; industry has learned, and to much greater effect, how to pilfer from the public's money."
My point is that once the state is granted a power for which it can pick and choose who benefits, just like with supposed "bad speech", the problem is always who is deciding.
At one time I lived in a rather old-school conservative (Roman Catholic) community. They were all right with some forms of Welfare, but the people were acutely conscious that the money or stuff would have to be collected from _somebody_, and that that somebody would probably be the lower and middle classes -- themselves. Hence projects, whether welfaristic or intended to benefit the better-off, were looked upon with great suspicion until it became clear how and for whom they were to be funded. Through my experience I came to doubt that the people would simply vote themselves funny money. But in a severely class-based social order like that of the present United States, those further down on the economic food chain come to feel that it is best to get while the gettin's good.
"I don't see anything inevitable about the evolution of such projects into fascism or whatever you're getting at above."
You can't deduce the evolution of socialism into tyranny from the statement about collective ownership alone. You have to dig deeper and ask:
1. What are the ethical/political premises behind the statement, and what do they imply for the broader concept of individual rights?
2. What does history tell us about the relative freedom and prosperity of socialist versus capitalist countries? The extreme examples are particularly illuminating (close to 100% vs. close to 0% state ownership/control of means of production).
Progressive politics that fermented over decades of hiding in academia and government bowels. Spawned from elitist parents who's offspring now feel superior to the masses they have never known or understood while detesting their own privilege. It is very sad if it wasn't so dangerous.
Yay. Another Brit. As Matt Goodwin (another great substacker) says, when people ask him as a former leftie "What happened to you?", his reply is "No, what happened to you?" ... it's not him that's moved to the right - it's the left that's moved much farther left, with Matt (and many others) staying put and realising the tide has gone out around them.
Things are changing to the extent I no longer know what's right-wing or left any more. I only recognise what I think is decency and fair play, and that seems to be smeared across all political persuasions these days. A pity that a basic philosophy embracing openness and kindness in society is too often used as a political target, often by those purportedly on the same side of a given issue. So, for example, I might be against lower taxation and also against constraints on free speech. Another person might disagree with me on the former, but agree on the right to air our opinions. Well, instead of accusing me of being a Marxist leftie dogmatist, why not join forces and agree on free speech, and debate any remaining subjects in an open and amiable way? Too much vitriol around and not enough coming together. I'm with Naomi on that, bless her.
You put it very well. Though have the left moved to the left or to the right? Arguably either: both extremes embody dictatorship, censorship, propaganda and corruption. Which is why I feel along with many others that the left/ right distinction is maybe unhelpful, constantly requiring caveats and qualification. I'm regularly having to clarify my position in this way (e.g. L/ wing doesn't necessarily mean Marxist). Left vs. right: best abandoned if we are to find better unity, looking at a vast array of issues in themselves, rather than apply un-nuanced labels?
Hi Quentin - actually I agree with you. One of the problems people like (I think) us have is finding words to describe what's happening. Woke ? Far-Left ? Intersectional politics ? Neo-Liberalism ? Identity politics ? Neo-Fascism ? Censorship-Industrial Complex ? Cancel Culture ? Things are just "wrong" and most of us could summarise the things which make us uncomfortable, but it's hard to come up with a single label.
Which is a shame because putting a name to something is one of the best ways to make it real and enable people to talk about it and unify around fighting it.
A Taibbi Leftist or a Jimmy Dore Leftist. Its a thing. Would probably be a lot more of us if not for subversion from the Neolib/Neocon Establishment and the use of Champagne Liberalism as the new religion to control the masses.
Same for me, over in the UK. I still strongly believe in that set of values that once were the core of post-2nd-WW progressive socialism - and which brought many good things to Western society. Imperfect but at its heart were transparency in government, freedom of speech, education for all, trade union rights, social services providing health and welfare for those in need etc. At a certain point in history this value set was pitched against a perceived heartlessness in conservatism. I still belong there politically but on neither side of the pond is there a party which enshrine those old-school leftist views any longer.
I think what you and Matt can't seem to understand is your idealized version of "post 2nd WW progressive socialism" inevitably leads to where we are now. Matt's ending comment was quite telling.
"Where do these people come from, and how did they come to be so entitled?"
Left wing educational institutions and progressive politics carry most of the blame.
Bit of a head-scratcher, that! For one thing, I have not idealised post-war societal progress, such as it has been, in the least - As I said, it was/ is imperfect. ANY social or political model is flawed and imperfect. That's humanity for you. What can be said is that (very broad generalisation....) much of the progress made post-war emanated from governments to an almost passable degree answering to, and represented by, a broad electorate. In the UK, we had a swathe of politicians over several governments, both in power and opposition, whose ethics were characteristically "leftist" in seeking and often, incrementally, achieving a better and more egalitarian society. The decline in the UK, demonstrably, began when ultra-right-wing Margaret Thatcher declared war on the working classes and our welfare state. Many caveats to the above, but this isn't an essay.
Lastly, taking a pop at "left wing educational institutions and and progressive politics" is an off-target generalisation. The present corrupt and sanctimonious nature of our governments has little to do with left- or right-wing politics. It has do do with all governments being hijacked by military and corporate interests, and that includes the despicable right-wing government over here. Not that the Labour Party when they (most likely) come to power will be any better. And this leaves a huge number of the old-school progressive lefties, of which I'm one, devastated and politically homeless (as the cliché goes). All educational institutions are now grooming grounds for the new "culture" of corruption and censorship, and the decline in no way, historically or logically, derives from the efforts of good people to improve the lot of their fellow humans. Sorry, but that's just nonsense!
Many would say the decline in the UK started with the drive towards a "more egalitarian" society and that Thatcher's election was the antidote to decades of decline. Old school progressive lefties who truly believe in transparency and equality probably do feel politically homeless. Once again, however, the current state of affairs is the logical end game from a progressive desire for government to do more and take a larger role in the day to day affairs of its citizens. I think the misguided "efforts of good people to improve the lot of their fellow humans" is exactly how we get the ridiculous Irish politicians who want to censor more in the name of protecting the public. Absurd.
Of course there are many who supported Thatcher, indeed still support what she did. But that she heralded the end of decades of decline is stretching things a bit! Sure, we had trade unions who had become too cocksure and dominant, not recognising the simple fact that screwing companies for every penny in wage increases, striking without consultation and all the other malpractices of the time would lead to the bankruptcy of their employers. The problem there was our industrial revolution heritage: the "us and them" of management and workers. And the solution, which worked well in other European countries, was much earlier on to break down the class-based divisions, introduce better training, education and managerial inclusiveness of the work-force; and a number of - let's avoid the words "liberal" or "socialist" which clearly vex you 😩 - socially conscious measures. So OK, the old girl inherited a tricky problem. But she was someone who hadn't a clue about industry or manufacturing, and instead of working to bring the unions on-side and revolutionise our industrial base, she set out to destroy it. Her vision of a UK work-force selling insurance policies and beef burgers worked, and now, traceable to her, we have a deeply impoverished manufacturing base. [Made worse more recently by Brexit, it's true, which was an impressive display of self-destructiveness by the UK populace. Imperfect though the EC is, we had considerable influence within the 27, far more than with the much-vaunted "sovereignty", which is now accelerating the erosion of our economy. 60% approx. of our trade both ways was with the EC, our neighbours, and we've put a bureaucratic minefield in the way of that which is having devastating consequences.]
But I digress. There were many, many left-wing politicians from earlier times who would abhor what is happening now in the perverted name of "liberalism" - anathema to the principles of decency they (very broadly speaking) held. That's where so many of us feel WE haven't changed, but the "liberal" tide has swirled beyond us.
You speak of the "desire for government to do more and take a larger role in the day to day affairs of its citizens". When we look at the drive to control what we think, then yes, this is perfectly abhorrent and indeed absurd. But this is completely different from state funding, which has has been receding since Thatcher, of our health services, the railways, our education system, or our environmental and river authorities, and so-on. Again, an imperfect system, but there is no evidence at all that the galloping de-funding and/or privatisation of those sectors has brought improvement - far from it. Management for profit and austerity are each arguably a significant part of much social and structural erosion over here since Maggie - an essay in itself. The efforts of those who saw societal benefit in enhancing all those sectors, and improving the health and lives of all, were hardly what led to where we are now.
To follow your logic, if, in the sense I'm speaking of, the "efforts of good people to improve the lot of their fellow humans" can only lead to the insanity of recent Irish, European, British (etc., etc) legislation, then we may as well all give up on aiming for increased fairness and equality in society. But what then is the alternative to that struggle?
Anyway, nice speaking with you. Must now move on to a million other more mundane things calling for attention! Best wishes.
The old-time definition of socialism was "the means of production owned and controlled by the workers, or the community in general." In other words, any workers' cooperative. I don't see anything inevitable about the evolution of such projects into fascism or whatever you're getting at above. What you may be getting at is the development of liberalism into the politics of war'n'welfare characteristic of Otto von Bismarck and Lyndon Johnson. Liberalism is not socialism; it's a form of capitalism.
To add to DH's response below, I'd like to also share this prescient "prediction", thought to come from Franklyn:
"When the people discover they can vote themselves money [welfare], that will herald the end of the republic."
And here is a more thorough rebuke of the concept:
'Bread and Circuses' is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader – the barbarians enter Rome." - Robert A. Heinlein
The problem is even worse, however, and much to the point of progressive socialist types too; industry has learned, and to much greater effect, how to pilfer from the public's money. Yet, they cannot see that the mere ability of the state to do so, is the problem.
Personally, it's the exact same problem with the idea of censoring speech. When we ask, who then will decide what speech is acceptable and what is not, "old school lefties" are able to see the dilemma, but I pose the same the question to "old school lefties"; when it comes to doling out the public's money, who then decides to whom and for how much, should the public share their money? Once that power was granted, what we see now was inevitable.
Yes. Only the stockholding class should be allowed to use the government to enrich themselves! Crooked trade deals. Stimulating the economy to inflate asset values more than workers' income. Lockdowns that shut down millions of small businesses and transferred trillions of dollars to the stockholding class.
"Yes"?
Am I to infer you think that's what I've said above? Just the opposite. Albeit, it wasn't written very well - rather clunky:
"The problem is even worse, however, and much to the point of progressive socialist types too; industry has learned, and to much greater effect, how to pilfer from the public's money."
My point is that once the state is granted a power for which it can pick and choose who benefits, just like with supposed "bad speech", the problem is always who is deciding.
Sorry. I was responding to the first part, which is commonly associated with the upper class hypocrisy I described.
At one time I lived in a rather old-school conservative (Roman Catholic) community. They were all right with some forms of Welfare, but the people were acutely conscious that the money or stuff would have to be collected from _somebody_, and that that somebody would probably be the lower and middle classes -- themselves. Hence projects, whether welfaristic or intended to benefit the better-off, were looked upon with great suspicion until it became clear how and for whom they were to be funded. Through my experience I came to doubt that the people would simply vote themselves funny money. But in a severely class-based social order like that of the present United States, those further down on the economic food chain come to feel that it is best to get while the gettin's good.
"I don't see anything inevitable about the evolution of such projects into fascism or whatever you're getting at above."
You can't deduce the evolution of socialism into tyranny from the statement about collective ownership alone. You have to dig deeper and ask:
1. What are the ethical/political premises behind the statement, and what do they imply for the broader concept of individual rights?
2. What does history tell us about the relative freedom and prosperity of socialist versus capitalist countries? The extreme examples are particularly illuminating (close to 100% vs. close to 0% state ownership/control of means of production).
Progressive politics that fermented over decades of hiding in academia and government bowels. Spawned from elitist parents who's offspring now feel superior to the masses they have never known or understood while detesting their own privilege. It is very sad if it wasn't so dangerous.
Spot on!
Yay. Another Brit. As Matt Goodwin (another great substacker) says, when people ask him as a former leftie "What happened to you?", his reply is "No, what happened to you?" ... it's not him that's moved to the right - it's the left that's moved much farther left, with Matt (and many others) staying put and realising the tide has gone out around them.
Things are changing to the extent I no longer know what's right-wing or left any more. I only recognise what I think is decency and fair play, and that seems to be smeared across all political persuasions these days. A pity that a basic philosophy embracing openness and kindness in society is too often used as a political target, often by those purportedly on the same side of a given issue. So, for example, I might be against lower taxation and also against constraints on free speech. Another person might disagree with me on the former, but agree on the right to air our opinions. Well, instead of accusing me of being a Marxist leftie dogmatist, why not join forces and agree on free speech, and debate any remaining subjects in an open and amiable way? Too much vitriol around and not enough coming together. I'm with Naomi on that, bless her.
You put it very well. Though have the left moved to the left or to the right? Arguably either: both extremes embody dictatorship, censorship, propaganda and corruption. Which is why I feel along with many others that the left/ right distinction is maybe unhelpful, constantly requiring caveats and qualification. I'm regularly having to clarify my position in this way (e.g. L/ wing doesn't necessarily mean Marxist). Left vs. right: best abandoned if we are to find better unity, looking at a vast array of issues in themselves, rather than apply un-nuanced labels?
Hi Quentin - actually I agree with you. One of the problems people like (I think) us have is finding words to describe what's happening. Woke ? Far-Left ? Intersectional politics ? Neo-Liberalism ? Identity politics ? Neo-Fascism ? Censorship-Industrial Complex ? Cancel Culture ? Things are just "wrong" and most of us could summarise the things which make us uncomfortable, but it's hard to come up with a single label.
Which is a shame because putting a name to something is one of the best ways to make it real and enable people to talk about it and unify around fighting it.
A Taibbi Leftist or a Jimmy Dore Leftist. Its a thing. Would probably be a lot more of us if not for subversion from the Neolib/Neocon Establishment and the use of Champagne Liberalism as the new religion to control the masses.
Bill Clinton finally killed off any sort of leftism that may have existed in mainstream politics.