|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Lady Thatcher and State Funerals
|
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I believe Our Lord Jesus Christ will tell her "Yes, Maggie, there is such a thing as 'society'", when she enters into the next life.
If you believe that, you'll believe anything.
Well, surely we expect to "know even as we are known"?
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The second is the vicious and visceral hatred directed against the (almost late) Thatcher compared with the ho-hum cerebral analysis (or even mere registration) of the recent demise of the late Kim Jong-Il, responsible for the avoidable starvation of 1-2 million of his subject citizens, and for the oppression, imprisonment, enslavement, torture and execution of countless others.
The point here (and I always find it odd that one should have to point it out in cases like this) is that Mrs Thatcher was our monster. Unlike Kim Jong-Il.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Capitalism rewards investment. That's why it's called capitalism. It doesn't reward hard work. It exploits hard work. That's why it's not called labourism.
Someone who starts a business, works hard, reinvests her capital in the business and rewards the employees and investors who have made it possible is a capitalist.
Someone who thinks that all benefits should flow to employees at the top of the heap while squeezing the people below is a corporatist.
I don't think that corporatism is used in that way in standard discussions of economics. Nor is socialism.
What happens if someone starts a business is that they go to the banks asking the banks to invest capital in the business. The banks invest capital in the business and the banks get the reward for their investment.
The point of capitalism is that the economy is structured around capital. Ok - capitalism - capital. Some people have capital to invest: if they invest it they get a return on it. They don't necessarily start businesses themselves; the banks don't start businesses. In effect they hire other people to start businesses for them.
People who don't have any capital to invest do not get a return on any investment. They get employed by the people investing capital. (Or they are unemployed.) Rewarding employees beyond what is necessary to retain employees diminishes the return upon investment and is therefore not strictly speaking capitalist. It's a sign that the business is being run more like a co-operative. To the extent that the business is a co-operative it is socialist.
Socialism is a belief that everyone contributing to society either directly or indirectly should receive a share of the benefits.
A digression on labour economics. High demand increases prices; high supply lowers prices. If there are a lot of jobs and not many people looking for work then the price of labour goes up. If there are a lot of people looking for work and not much work for them to do then the price of labour goes down. So if there are a lot of unemployed people then every business can keep its salary cost down. This means that they make a greater return on their investment. If those unemployed people went away the businesses would have to pay more and would be less successful. Thus every unemployed person who is looking for work is contributing to the success of every business.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
The point here (and I always find it odd that one should have to point it out in cases like this) is that Mrs Thatcher was our monster. Unlike Kim Jong-Il.
We all agree that murdering hundreds of thousands of people is worse than kicking someone in the balls. But when someone kicks me in my balls I still feel entitled to resent it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
To say that capitalism is about nothing but greed and money is as silly as saying that socialism is about nothing but envy and omnipotent bureaucracy.
As someone said years ago: quote:
In capitalism man exploits man, whereas in socialism it is the other way round.
The core problem is people, particularly those in positions of power. I'm sorry if that sounds jaundiced at the season of goodwill.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Comparing Margaret Thatcher to Kim Jong Il is like the(too frequently made and astoundingly serious) comparisons of Joe McCarthy to Joe Stalin. Ask the True Believer "And how many people died under McCarthyism?" and you will be treated to an epic snit.
But the two (Thatcher vs Kim, McCarthy vs Stalin) really are not comparable, in either case. You can deplore their policies, and their effect on the people that they hurt, but let's keep a sense of proportion, please.
Dafyd, I wasn't speaking of economics as taught in school, and I would have thought you would notice that.
I was referring to the practical economics of our day, in which the hard-working, careful small business owner is allowed to fail due to the shenanigans of bloated giant corporations. The latter are allowed to misbehave and then bailed out by the taxpayers - while their CEOs and co-conspirators take home billions. Small businesses are the backbone of this country, at least; Citibank et al... not so much.
[edited to respond to Dafyd in the same post. Economical, yes?]
[ 26. December 2011, 14:48: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
But the two (Thatcher vs Kim, McCarthy vs Stalin) really are not comparable, in either case. You can deplore their policies, and their effect on the people that they hurt, but let's keep a sense of proportion, please.
It's no use. Some people can't be rational about her. I hope the denizens of this thread will forgive me for saying so.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I was referring to the practical economics of our day, in which the hard-working, careful small business owner is allowed to fail due to the shenanigans of bloated giant corporations. The latter are allowed to misbehave and then bailed out by the taxpayers - while their CEOs and co-conspirators take home billions.
If that's what you're objecting to, you need to work out who your allies are. People who actually call themselves socialists (i.e. ken) are on your side. People who defend their proposed policies by warning you against socialism and praising capitalism are not on your side.
(And if capitalism just means whatever economic policies the speaker prefers it's a fairly meaningless word.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think that the comparisons between unpopular home politicians and foreign dictators becomes a bit less reprehensible if you consider the foreign and the home bit. While McCarthy wasn't in Stalin's league in terms of harm done globally, it's at the very least arguable that he and his admirers did more harm to the US than admirers of Stalin.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Ross, I agree with you completely when you say: quote:
I was referring to the practical economics of our day, in which the hard-working, careful small business owner is allowed to fail due to the shenanigans of bloated giant corporations. The latter are allowed to misbehave and then bailed out by the taxpayers - while their CEOs and co-conspirators take home billions. Small businesses are the backbone of this country, at least; Citibank et al... not so much.
But I see this as capitalism supporting capitalists. To me, socialism is all about protecting the little people.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
But I see this as capitalism supporting capitalists. To me, socialism is all about protecting the little people.
To me they are both ultimately exercises in godlessness. Christianity may speak one way or another on a particular issue, but political ideologies are irrelevant.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that the comparisons between unpopular home politicians and foreign dictators becomes a bit less reprehensible if you consider the foreign and the home bit. While McCarthy wasn't in Stalin's league in terms of harm done globally, it's at the very least arguable that he and his admirers did more harm to the US than admirers of Stalin.
Well, it's arguable if you just want to have an argument, but not if you take a good hard look at history.
McCarthy was loathesome, but the worst harm he did was to ruin a few careers. That's certainly reprehensible, but it fades into insignificance when you think of what "admirers of Stalin" did: for starters, they made sure that we came into World War II as allies of the Soviets, rather than as co-belligerents.
That meant that we actively supported the Soviets with money and materiel, and then condemned half of Europe to their tender care, resulting in untold misery and death. We didn't protest the fact that thousands of German POWs spent the rest of their lives in Soviet prison camps, or even that some Allied soldiers did. And that's just one example.
Remind me again...how many thousands were starved, imprisoned, or killed in Margaret Thatcher's brutal, totalitarian Britain to put her into the league of a Kim Jong Il?
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
My Communist friends are typically unmoved by efforts to instigate a body count competition.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Well, of course, LQ, they would be. However, it seems like a rather cheap cop-out when comparing a Thatcher to a Kim, or a McCarthy to a Stalin.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Ross
He taught people outside the US that those inside the US can be dangerously neurotic.
You say that did not harm the US when it is a superpower and needs to be trusted?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I'm not sure that anyone here has compared Thatcher to Kim or Stalin; if they did, I've missed it. I think I've made it clear that I don't like the woman, but she wasn't in their league. However, I'm not convinced it's a ringing endorsement of her policies to say she didn't do as much harm as the worst dictators in recent history.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I've never been convinced that 'capitalism' is an 'ism' in its own right, rather than just a word to described the economics you have if you don't have any other sort of 'ism'.
If we go back to Ma T though, and try and be rational about her, it seems to me we have the following.
1. Very few non-royals have been given state funerals. Those that have, have been given them for really outstanding achievements, usually in war in which the homeland has been threatened, Nelson, Wellington, Haig, Churchill, have been given them for as war leaders. The odd one out is Lord Carson. That appears to have been specific to circumstances in Northern Ireland. It is some years ago now, but one suspects it was divisive.
2. On the + side,
a. She gave people the spine to fight back and win when the Argentinians invaded the Falklands.
b. She brought to an end the chaos, turmoil, decadence and indiscipline that was Britain in the 1970s. If one can remember those times, they were dreadful. No one in their right mind would like to go there again. That was bound to be unpleasant and involve some bruised heads. Whether somebody else could have done it better, or what would have happened if nobody had had the determination to take on the job we shall never know. But it had to be done.
People should be grateful for these two achievements.
3. On the - side,
a. She destroyed a lot of peoples' lives and a lot of communities. Some of her most enthusiastic supporters would say that was the only way of achieving 2(b), that it was the price that had to be paid, or even that such people by their behaviour merited being treated as unpeople anyway. Most of us though would prefer to hope that this is not the case, and that 2(b) could have been achived in a less destructive way.
b. As a by-product of 2(b), the method she chose was destructive of a lot of material industrial capital. The jury is still out on whether this was necessary or a colossal waste of accumulative national assets.
c. There is a widespread and probably justified impression that aspects of her ideology have had a profoundly negative effect on the concepts of public spiritedness and public duty that underlay both paid and voluntary public service prior to the 1980s.
d. A lot of the programmes associated with her name have not worked well. Selling shares in former nationalised industries has not produced a share owning democracy. Even the ones that have been on balance a good thing, such as bus deregulation, could have been handled better.
e. Whatever the eventual outcome of devolution, the way she handled the poll tax has very materially increased centripetal forces that work for the dissolution of the union.
3. There is and remains legitimate debate as to whether privatisation is a good thing or not, to what it should and shouldn't be applied, and indeed, what beyond the military, police and courts is best made the responsibility of the state. Whatever their opinions on individual portfolios, most of the public would place more things in the state sphere than dogmatic Thatcherites would. So in addition to the hatreds generated by 3(a), 21 years after her fall, she is still associated with highly disputed political argument.
4. Likening Lady Thatcher to Stalin, Kim Jung-il or their ilk is disproportionate. It demonstrates that a person has the good fortune never to have experienced despotism, yet alone tyranny and lacks the imagination to understand what they are like.
5. A state funeral should only be given in respect of someone that the public at large, rather than their family, friends and supporters, will genuinely wish to mourn. Irrespective of the Falklands, awarding one to someone who is associated with controversy, and whom a large people will not want to mourn, would be divisive. It would be a misuse of power. It is treating the public like North Koreans, an attempt by one faction to impose their emotions on everyone else.
6. It would be likely to provoke demonstrations, which would be disrespectful of the dead.
7. Whether one approves of her or detests her, objectively, Lady Thatcher was in the upper quartile of prime ministers, but against the long tide of history, is not ranked among the great.
What do people think of this summary? As I said in my OP, I'm not as rabidly anti her as a lot of people are. Nor though am I among those who adulate her. I hope I haven't abandoned my critical faculties in either direction.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I'm not sure that anyone here has compared Thatcher to Kim or Stalin...
Well, Inger wrote:
quote:
...Mrs Thatcher was our monster. Unlike Kim Jong-Il.
I brought in the nudniks who compare McCarthy to Stalin, to which Dafyd replied:
quote:
...While McCarthy wasn't in Stalin's league in terms of harm done globally, it's at the very least arguable that he and his admirers did more harm to the US than admirers of Stalin.
Margaret Thatcher wasn't even in the same game as Kim, let alone his league. McCarthy was a Little Leaguer compared to Stalin. Perspective, people, perspective!
As Enoch wrote,
quote:
Likening Lady Thatcher to Stalin, Kim Jung-il or their ilk is disproportionate. It demonstrates that a person has the good fortune never to have experienced despotism, yet alone tyranny and lacks the imagination to understand what they are like.
I would endorse this from Enoch, too:
quote:
She brought to an end the chaos, turmoil, decadence and indiscipline that was Britain in the 1970s. If one can remember those times, they were dreadful. No one in their right mind would like to go there again. That was bound to be unpleasant and involve some bruised heads. Whether somebody else could have done it better, or what would have happened if nobody had had the determination to take on the job we shall never know. But it had to be done.
Get back to the original question: Should she have a state funeral? The answer is clearly "No," for all the reasons that Enoch has given in his excellent summary.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I'm not sure that anyone here has compared Thatcher to Kim or Stalin...
Well, Inger wrote:
quote:
...Mrs Thatcher was our monster. Unlike Kim Jong-Il.
I brought in the nudniks who compare McCarthy to Stalin, to which Dafyd replied:
quote:
...While McCarthy wasn't in Stalin's league in terms of harm done globally, it's at the very least arguable that he and his admirers did more harm to the US than admirers of Stalin.
Margaret Thatcher wasn't even in the same game as Kim, let alone his league. McCarthy was a Little Leaguer compared to Stalin. Perspective, people, perspective!
I assume Robert meant a substantive disagreement, as opposed to people broadly in agreement with you but differing over the correct choice of sport analogy (which I gladly defer to those more knowledgeable!) As Robert and Inger point out, it's hardly as if we generally wait for rulers to run as seriously afoul as Kim or Stalin before we speak out.
Plus, it would make sense in light of the respective systems that in a tyranny with a centralized economy, the deaths that result would be centrally decided or ordered. That under capitalism death is privately contracted, like everything else, and Joe McCarthy merely the apologist for the death-dealers, is not, I think, a particularly high compliment to Joe McCarthy. And even then I doubt Reagan would come off particularly well if the totals from his various foreign interventions were tallied. I'm not sure why it's inherently more virtuous to be cosy with right-wing dictators than left-wing ones.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
And even then I doubt Reagan would come off particularly well if the totals from his various foreign interventions were tallied. I'm not sure why it's inherently more virtuous to be cosy with right-wing dictators than left-wing ones.
Foreign interventions are not wrong in themselves unless you are a doctrinaire isolationist, and making temporary pragmatic alliances with dictators (such as the West’s with Stalin against Hitler, or later with “our sonsofbitches” against communists) is not wrong in itself unless you have a scruple against realpolitik per se.
The practicality and ethics of each intervention and alliance has to be decided on a case by case basis.
The overriding (but not only) issue is whether the system being defended is liberal and democratic.
It is moronic to draw the slightest equivalence between Thatcher and a tyrant such as Kim Jong-Il by referring to them both as “monsters”.
Kim Jong-Il was a monster.
Thatcher was just another politician who got in democratically with a vote about the same as that of Salvador Allende (whose legitimacy is not attacked on the basis of his minority percentage), carried out policies which some decent, reasonable people supported and others didn’t., and eventually departed in accordance with the same democratic system.
I am not sure how the admittedly unpleasant Joe McCarthy finished up in the discussion, but given that he was responsible for the death of one innocent (probably) victim in Ethel Rosenberg, plus a few disrupted showbiz careers, it is bizarre to try to equate him with the murderers of millions such as Stalin.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
...As Robert and Inger point out, it's hardly as if we generally wait for rulers to run as seriously afoul as Kim or Stalin before we speak out.
Oh, dear. Are you suggesting that Margaret Thatcher would have "run as seriously afoul as Kim or Stalin" had she had the opportunity?
quote:
...That under capitalism death is privately contracted ...
I beg your pardon? Would you care to explicate? I've somehow missed the part where giant corporations started running death camps in the US, UK, and other "capitalist" countries.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
...As Robert and Inger point out, it's hardly as if we generally wait for rulers to run as seriously afoul as Kim or Stalin before we speak out.
Oh, dear. Are you suggesting that Margaret Thatcher would have "run as seriously afoul as Kim or Stalin" had she had the opportunity?
I'm questioning the assumption that she has to. By your logic, if I'm ever charged with murder, or some other indictable offence, I can plead not guilty on the grounds that I haven't "entered Kim country"?
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I've somehow missed the part where giant corporations started running death camps in the US, UK, and other "capitalist" countries.
You may have; plenty have not. Of course, it's easier to miss when it's not anything as dramatically satisfying as a centrally-controlled death camp. That's my point: capitalism diffuses.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
...By your logic, if I'm ever charged with murder, or some other indictable offence, I can plead not guilty on the grounds that I haven't "entered Kim country"?
What is that supposed to mean?
quote:
...it's not anything as dramatically satisfying as a centrally-controlled death camp. That's my point: capitalism diffuses.
The BBC story is the only thing here that warrants another look. We've got a report on cigarette marketing, something from a conspiracy site - and something from a a former Sandinista official who would rather make accusations than have his own regime's track record in human rights violations examined.
Margaret Thatcher was not a monster. She was not a murderer. She was lightyears from being a Kim. You just didn't like her policies. Can you see how absurd your accusations are becoming?
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
So are there any shipmates out there who are prepared to stick their necks out and say they think she should have a state funeral when in due course she does go the way of Ninevah, Tyre and Kim Jong-il. Or are we all agreed that assessing this using UK parameters and conventions, she shouldn't?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
...Or are we all agreed that assessing this using UK parameters and conventions, she shouldn't?
Agreed.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Can you see how absurd your accusations are becoming?
Since it's not altogether clear to me yet whether the accusations you attribute to me are ones I in fact care to make, I couldn't say. I certainly don't think you need to stick a knife in someone's back physically to be complicit in a wrongful death, much less to be a wicked ruler. That Baroness Thatcher has not committed felony murder may be sufficient to you to absolve her from monstrosity, but not to the "reasonable person" of legal doctrine. I think those whose livelihoods were ruined by the collapse of British manufacturing, or those who were "disappeared" by Pinochet's regime would probably say "monstrous" about sums up the legacy of her policies.
[ 27. December 2011, 18:53: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
If Thatcher were given a State Funeral I would seriously consider attending a demonstration with a placard reading 'Not in my name'.
It was her government that de-regulated the UK banking system, the fruits of which were seen in the banking crisis; dealing with that has cost the taxpayer billions of pounds, resulting in the current public spending cuts, and consequential loss of thousands of jobs. So, people in the UK are still suffering the consequences of her policies.
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
... That Baroness Thatcher has not committed felony murder may be sufficient to you to absolve her from monstrosity, but not to the "reasonable person" of legal doctrine. I think those whose livelihoods were ruined by the collapse of British manufacturing, or those who were "disappeared" by Pinochet's regime would probably say "monstrous" about sums up the legacy of her policies.
Comparing Thatcher to Pinochet is ridiculous. Do you just put anyone more conservative than Gorbachev into a box marked "Evil Right-Winger"?
Socialist and Communist regimes have been responsible for more lives ruined and lost than any other belief system in the last century - and that's saying something. At least Thatcher was actually trying to help her country.
Since this is threatening to get Hellish, I will quit the discussion with one last summation of my stance:
Margaret Thatcher was a great, but seriously flawed figure. She does not, by British norms, deserve a state funeral. She does deserve the honor and respect of her compatriots for all the things she did achieve for the good.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Comparing Thatcher to Pinochet is ridiculous. Do you just put anyone more conservative than Gorbachev into a box marked "Evil Right-Winger"?
Thatcher and Pinochet were good friends and she tried very hard to protect him.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I've just checked that despite the deep anger expressed here by many (for perfectly good reasons to my mind), the f**k word has not been used once.
It seems to work differently in American and British usage.
End of digression.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
So who's just used it then, and what has it contributed?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
... That Baroness Thatcher has not committed felony murder may be sufficient to you to absolve her from monstrosity, but not to the "reasonable person" of legal doctrine. I think those whose livelihoods were ruined by the collapse of British manufacturing, or those who were "disappeared" by Pinochet's regime would probably say "monstrous" about sums up the legacy of her policies.
Comparing Thatcher to Pinochet is ridiculous. Do you just put anyone more conservative than Gorbachev into a box marked "Evil Right-Winger"?
I wasn't "comparing" her: I was pointing to an example of a result of her policies (namely, her cosy support for Pinochet) implicated in civilian deaths. Brushing it off as "ridiculous" isn't exactly a stinging retort.
Why are you so keen, for that matter, to mitigate anyone more liberal than the Kim dynasty as merely "flawed"? Those victimized by Pinochet with Thatcher's aid and comfort would differ with the "greatness" assessment. I'm not being rhetorical, either, but am genuinely surprised: I never took you for such a hawk, Ross!
Despite my perplexity, though, I'm finding this fascinating and wouldn't want it to get punted to the Inferno. Although admittedly we've come a long way from state ecclesiantical protocol.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I was referring to the practical economics of our day, in which the hard-working, careful small business owner is allowed to fail due to the shenanigans of bloated giant corporations. The latter are allowed to misbehave and then bailed out by the taxpayers - while their CEOs and co-conspirators take home billions.
If that's what you're objecting to, you need to work out who your allies are. People who actually call themselves socialists (i.e. ken) are on your side.
Oh sure, for now.
Except once they've got rid of all the big business owners they'll get rid of all the small business owners. They won't stop until nobody owns anything and we are all utterly dependent on the State for our entire existence.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I was referring to the practical economics of our day, in which the hard-working, careful small business owner is allowed to fail due to the shenanigans of bloated giant corporations. The latter are allowed to misbehave and then bailed out by the taxpayers - while their CEOs and co-conspirators take home billions.
If that's what you're objecting to, you need to work out who your allies are. People who actually call themselves socialists (i.e. ken) are on your side.
Oh sure, for now.
Except once they've got rid of all the big business owners they'll get rid of all the small business owners. They won't stop until nobody owns anything and we are all utterly dependent on the State for our entire existence.
Marvin, do you posess telepathy and clairvoyance? I aspire to be a socialist (as with many honourable titles, such as Christian, which I dare to apply to myself, I am mainly conscious of the many ways in which I do not live up to all it implies) and I have no desire to "get rid of all the small business owners". Nor does anyone else I know. Personally, I'm not convinced that making far fetched claims does much to advance an honest debate.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
If Thatcher were given a State Funeral I would seriously consider attending a demonstration with a placard reading 'Not in my name'.
Angus
It occurred to me that turning up, with others, and facing away from the cortege might express things appropriately. This had some small agreement from those I was with the last few days.
Penny
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I aspire to be a socialist (as with many honourable titles, such as Christian, which I dare to apply to myself, I am mainly conscious of the many ways in which I do not live up to all it implies) and I have no desire to "get rid of all the small business owners". Nor does anyone else I know. Personally, I'm not convinced that making far fetched claims does much to advance an honest debate.
And as the son of a small business owner, dependent on small business for my support growing up, I would certainly have no such agenda. On the contrary, I've criticized some currents of socialism for lumping small business owners in with Big Bad Surplus Value Exploiters.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Stephen the Stoned
Shipmate
# 9841
|
Posted
I heard the WaO item on the car radio as I drove to the Northern General Hospital to visit my mother, who was on an End Of Life Care Plan. I thought for a second that Thatcher was dead, then realised that the lack of fireworks and cheering people (this is still the Peoples' Republic of South Yorkshire) made that unlikely.
I thought "if she upstages my mother...!"
For the first and last time, I wished Thatcher a long life.
Mother died on Boxing Day.
--------------------
Do you want to see Jesus or don't yer? Well shurrup then!
Posts: 518 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I was referring to the practical economics of our day, in which the hard-working, careful small business owner is allowed to fail due to the shenanigans of bloated giant corporations. The latter are allowed to misbehave and then bailed out by the taxpayers - while their CEOs and co-conspirators take home billions.
If that's what you're objecting to, you need to work out who your allies are. People who actually call themselves socialists (i.e. ken) are on your side.
Oh sure, for now.
Except once they've got rid of all the big business owners they'll get rid of all the small business owners. They won't stop until nobody owns anything and we are all utterly dependent on the State for our entire existence.
Look who got a copy of The Road to Serfdom in his stocking, then.
Which is fair enough. Christmas is traditionally a time for far-fetched tales to make your spine tingle. As long as you remember that that's all they are.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Except once they've got rid of all the big business owners they'll get rid of all the small business owners.
Big business is usually the worst enemy of small business.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
She was the leader of your government for a pretty formative period.
You got that one wrong, Yank. She wasn't the leader of MY government. She was the leader of HER MAJESTY'S Government, and even at her most popular she never commanded the majority of the votes cast in any election, so even in that sense she wasn't the leader of MY government either.
I didn't vote for her, and never would, and neither would I ever vote for any member of the political party she represented, which I consider to be inherently selfish, greedy, divisive, and fundamentally non-Christian. As was Thatcher.
At least she hasn't used her retirement as a period for pure cash generation like a recent prime-minister I could mention. That man would qualify for a double first with bar and oak leaves in Greed.
She also left the economy in a better state then when she came to power although undoubtedly there were mistakes made in that period.
But really I doubt whether Mrs Thatcher or her family would contemplate a state funeral which like the Olympics would be just another excuse for wasting taxpayers' money. A private subscription to place her statue in Trafalgar Square might be more fitting.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Stephen the Stoned:
I heard the WaO item on the car radio as I drove to the Northern General Hospital to visit my mother, who was on an End Of Life Care Plan. I thought for a second that Thatcher was dead, then realised that the lack of fireworks and cheering people (this is still the Peoples' Republic of South Yorkshire) made that unlikely.
I thought "if she upstages my mother...!"
For the first and last time, I wished Thatcher a long life.
Mother died on Boxing Day.
Sorry about your mum but honestly - seeing what was done to the Fitzwilliam-Wentworth Estate in South Yorkshire (strip-mining one of the most beautiful places in Yorkshire by the Coal Board) I wonder it isn't called the Stupid Republic of South Yorkshire.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Except once they've got rid of all the big business owners they'll get rid of all the small business owners.
Big business is usually the worst enemy of small business.
Here in Australia, at least, trade unions don't much mind big business, with which they can "negotiate" deals, but utterly loathe the vast mass of small business people, particularly independent tradespeople (such as a plumber who sets up for themself and employs a few workers) because they can't be collectivised and controlled through some central body.
[ 28. December 2011, 19:46: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I aspire to be a socialist and I have no desire to "get rid of all the small business owners". Nor does anyone else I know.
Not right now, no. Because there are bigger business owners to destroy.
But once those bigger heads have all rolled, the ones who are smaller now will suddenly be the biggest. And the whole cycle will start again.
Until everyone is exactly equal there will always be a richest 10% and a poorest 10% of society. And that means there will always be socialists who want to destroy the former in order to build up the latter. There will always be new targets, and sooner or later they will include you and me.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Marvin, have you ever asked yourself who wants you to believe that?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
It's my own conjecture based on the known facts. I'm well aware that big business is evil, but if the only way to keep what I've got is to let those bastards keep what they've got as well then so be it.
If I could trust socialists to destroy big business then stop and leave the rest of us alone then I'd have far less of a problem with them. But I don't. I have no doubt that sooner or later they'll come after my posessions as well.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Except once they've got rid of all the big business owners they'll get rid of all the small business owners.
Big business is usually the worst enemy of small business.
Here in Australia, at least, trade unions don't much mind big business, with which they can "negotiate" deals, but utterly loathe the vast mass of small business people, particularly independent tradespeople (such as a plumber who sets up for themself and employs a few workers) because they can't be collectivised and controlled through some central body.
AIUI, the kind of managerialist left that's the most prominent form of leftism at the moment - the kind that takes a basically capitalist system and then tries to make it look more like socialism by means of centrally-imposed rules and regulations - tends, in practice, to favour big businesses over small, because big businesses have the capital and resources to implement more easily the regulations that are imposed on them.
(Of course ken would probably deny that the managerial-left is really left-wing at all.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Marvin, have you ever asked yourself who wants you to believe that?
Yes - the Evil Capitalist and Imperialist Cake-Maker - Mr Kipling.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's my own conjecture based on the known facts.
Ok, would have posted this earlier but have been away for a few days. Marvin, please give concrete and verifiable examples of actions by or arguments from major socialist or social democratic governments, parties, party leaders, or thinkers in Western Europe, the Antipodes or North America since 1945, which constitute these 'known facts'*.
* By 'thinkers' I mean people of the stature of, I suppose, Anthony Crosland in the UK. If you're citing things which might be seen as having primarily a symbolic importance (e.g. the old Labour Party Clause IV), please show how they were translated into actual lasting policy proposals.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
No, sod it, scrub that last message- I'm sure Marvin and I have both got better things to do than pursue this.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
