quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
...centred around established orders of society (rather than rapacious aspiration)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
...centred around established orders of society (rather than rapacious aspiration)...

---

Might I ask which of those orders of society you happen to be in?

I ask only because I've never yet heard anyone decry "rapacious aspiration" who wasn't already in the social stratum being aspired to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
[Hand up] I think that's more or less my position. Most of my High Church/Anglo-Catholic friends would also fit somewhere into the description as well. I'm fairly sure there aren't many of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The idea that the 'established order of society' is in any way compatible with socialism is laughable. Socialism is about equality, first and foremost, and all this 'paternal concern for the poor' aka patronising from people who will never experience poverty instead of empowering the poor, just reminds me of 'different but equal' bollocks. 'separate but equal' isn't equality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The idea that the 'established order of society' is in any way compatible with socialism is laughable. Socialism is about equality, first and foremost, and all this 'paternal concern for the poor' aka patronising from people who will never experience poverty instead of empowering the poor, just reminds me of 'different but equal' bollocks. 'separate but equal' isn't equality.

---

I guess then that you believe that there is no true socialism in the UK since the Labour party is full of millionaires and people who when they have 'checked their privilege' probably shouldn't say anything at all, and let's not forget those working class trade union leaders who earn 6 figure salaries and proclaim a form of social organisation that deepened inequality in Russia and China amongst other communist countries beyond anything that capitalism has ever.

Tory-ism was founded on proper intellectualism, but that is another thing lacking in all our politicians these days, and the Conservative party would do well to return to its roots and become the intellectual party once more.

As a person who does refer to themselves as a Tory (and yes I am the kind of Conservative member who believes in Monarchy, that aspiration has its place but that we should also make the most of the lot we have in life, a paternalistic approach to those that need help - because surely helping others as a father is better than having a faux-concern and patronising approach that left-wingers seem to take (pure hypocrisy most of the time) - small government, reasoned evolution of society and law... etc. etc.) I have no problems with the label, and wear it as a badge of honour despite how people use it as an insult.

Whilst I may be fairly liberal (I accept SSM but think it was rushed, the change should have been slower and better thought through) and respect what the current government has done in part, it is the fact that I am a Tory that inspires me to critique the party that I support rather than toe-the-party-line in the way that dissent is not always looked upon with friendliness from within the left (ISTM).

But then I blame myself, the rest of the Conservative membership, and society in general for having reduced our politicians to the level of popularity contestants, and as such the demise of High Tory ideals is down to our own lack of intellectual credibility rather than the fact that the philosophy itself is discredited.

---

Oh I absolutely believe that there's no true socialism in the UK! The level of millionaires and career politicians within the Labour party is appalling. Don't worry Sergius-Melli, I criticise faux-socialists (fauxcialists?) as much as I criticise pro-capitalist Liberals and Tories
 

---

Posted by jlav12 (# 17148) on :
 
I sympathize with the High Tory position but can't quite claim that label for myself (being on the wrong side of the pond and all). Socialism seems incompatible with High Toryism, which is concerned with established order, as others have said. Socialism seems to be the desire to end that order. Toryism acknowledges candidly that everyone has superiors and inferiors whilst socialism pretends to make everyone equal.
 

---

Posted by jlav12 (# 17148) on :
 
I sympathize with the High Tory position but can't quite claim that label for myself (being on the wrong side of the pond and all). Socialism seems incompatible with High Toryism, which is concerned with established order, as others have said. Socialism seems to be the desire to end that order. Toryism acknowledges candidly that everyone has superiors and inferiors whilst socialism pretends to make everyone equal.
 

---

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlav12:
socialism pretends to make everyone equal.

---

I think that might be the most pertinent comment to come out of this thread
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlav12:
I sympathize with the High Tory position but can't quite claim that label for myself (being on the wrong side of the pond and all). Socialism seems incompatible with High Toryism, which is concerned with established order, as others have said. Socialism seems to be the desire to end that order. Toryism acknowledges candidly that everyone has superiors and inferiors whilst socialism pretends to make everyone equal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
although because I believe that we are meant to live in the context of strong relationships with others I would much rather live in a High Tory 'bind in a living tether/ the prince and priest and thrall' society than in an individualistically liberal one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, Jade, but a High Tory or Christian Democrat would agree with that last sentence: some liberals would too. I think that you were right earlier when you suggested that socialism required some degree of equality, or at least of egalitarianism, which went beyond that: in which there were not, for example, gross disparities of wealth and privilege. That's why I consider myself to be some kind of socialist- although because I believe that we are meant to live in the context of strong relationships with others I would much rather live in a High Tory 'bind in a living tether/ the prince and priest and thrall' society than in an individualistically liberal one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
John Milbank fits the Tory Socialist mould better than Scruton, I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Albertus - forgive my whale-omelette thickness on this, but what on earth is "individualistic liberalism", what is "atomistic" in this context and why is it bad?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Jade: my point was that wanting a society in which it is recognised that God has made everyone equal in his sight- a statement with which I agree- is just a starting point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
It seems to me that the word 'Tory' gets used in at least two very different ways. The more common way, familiar from Union marches and sometimes leaking on to the pages of the New Statesman, seems to be an entirely derogatory term for members of the Conservative Party, and sometimes also for their alleged allies

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
John Milbank fits the Tory Socialist mould better than Scruton, I think.

---

At least one of the people I'm thinking of is definitely very much aligned with Milbank and Radical Orthodoxy, so that makes sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Nobody self-identifies as this sort of Tory, anymore than anyone unironically identifies as a 'Bolshie' or a 'Pinko'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
So, ken, in your view, would being a monarchist be incompatible with socialism, properly defined? I gather that a strong belief in the merits of a Constitutional Monarchy as opposed to a Republic, is one of the most coherent aspects of the political ideology of those who identify themselves as 'High Tory Socialists'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
So, ken, in your view, would being a monarchist be incompatible with socialism, properly defined? I gather that a strong belief in the merits of a Constitutional Monarchy as opposed to a Republic, is one of the most coherent aspects of the political ideology of those who identify themselves as 'High Tory Socialists'.

---

I hope ken doesn't mind me stepping in, but I certainly would consider the two to be incompatible. Someone having immense wealth and importance (which happens even with a constitutional monarchy) because of an accident of birth is totally incompatible with socialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Someone having immense wealth and importance (which happens even with a constitutional monarchy) because of an accident of birth is totally incompatible with socialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Tony Benn springs to mind, a wealthy aristocrat turned champagne socialist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Someone having immense wealth and importance (which happens even with a constitutional monarchy) because of an accident of birth is totally incompatible with socialism.

---

Well yeah, but only because someone having wealth and importance for any reason is incompatible with socialism...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Tony Benn springs to mind, a wealthy aristocrat turned champagne socialist.

---

'Champagne' socialist is hardly the term I would associate with Tony Benn. Mug of tea socialist more like. One of the few politicians with integrity.

(Not that there is anything wrong with being a socialist and enjoying champagne. Socialism is about us all having a share in the good things of life.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Someone having immense wealth and importance (which happens even with a constitutional monarchy) because of an accident of birth is totally incompatible with socialism.

---

Well yeah, but only because someone having wealth and importance for any reason is incompatible with socialism...

---

Owning both a playstation and an xbox are incompatible with socialism. The list of what is incompatible with socialism is very long indeed.

In fact it would be quicker to list those things that are compatible with socialism...


- A bleeding heart
- Economic illiteracy
- Judicial shortsightedness (it's not fair!... I think.)
- A desire for equality but only by reducing the good, not improving the bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Someone having immense wealth and importance (which happens even with a constitutional monarchy) because of an accident of birth is totally incompatible with socialism.

---

Well yeah, but only because someone having wealth and importance for any reason is incompatible with socialism...

---

quote:

---

originally posted by deano A desire for equality but only by reducing the good, not improving the bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Owning both a playstation and an xbox are incompatible with socialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Owning both a playstation and an xbox are incompatible with socialism.

---

Would either exist under socialism? I can't see a State Leisure Time Committee ordering the creation a games console, not even under a five year plan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Socialism means everyone has an equal chance to be head of state, and monarchy goes against this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...And Albertus, Attlee being a monarchist would prevent him from being a socialist....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...And Albertus, Attlee being a monarchist would prevent him from being a socialist....

---

I think, with the greatest respect, Jade, that I would rather look to Attlee than to you for a definition and indeed a model of what socialism means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Isn't this a spin off of the old joke that if you put two Socialists in a room you'll get three ideological splits or whatever?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Isn't this a spin off of the old joke that if you put two Socialists in a room you'll get three ideological splits or whatever? If you carry on casting out people for not being true socialists you'll sooner or later get to 'pure' socialism.

---

quote:

---

- A bleeding heart
- Economic illiteracy
- Judicial shortsightedness (it's not fair!... I think.)
- A desire for equality but only by reducing the good, not improving the bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Isn't this a spin off of the old joke that if you put two Socialists in a room you'll get three ideological splits or whatever?

---

Whereas if you put three Tories in one room...???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Owning both a playstation and an xbox are incompatible with socialism.

---

Would either exist under socialism? I can't see a State Leisure Time Committee ordering the creation a games console, not even under a five year plan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Isn't this a spin off of the old joke that if you put two Socialists in a room you'll get three ideological splits or whatever?

---

Whereas if you put three Tories in one room...???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I do sometimes wonder if you have the same Bible as me, since the rich hoarding their wealth isn't seen as a good thing by God. God's economics are pretty socialist - do you think God is economically illiterate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Isn't this a spin off of the old joke that if you put two Socialists in a room you'll get three ideological splits or whatever?

---

Whereas if you put three Tories in one room...???

---

Based on my experience? They'd probably have a cup of tea and engage in inane chit chat about their last coach trip, followed by a general discussion about the date of the next coffee morning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
2. The "hoarding" is done in a bank, which loans the money out to people and businesses. This keeps the economy moving which is the most important thing. The movement of money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Isn't this a spin off of the old joke that if you put two Socialists in a room you'll get three ideological splits or whatever?

---

Whereas if you put three Tories in one room...???

---

Based on my experience? They'd probably have a cup of tea and engage in inane chit chat about their last coach trip, followed by a general discussion about the date of the next coffee morning.

---

Oh, I'm sure there are things that Tories would split over too- the rival claims of Scotts of Stow and Coopers of Stortford, whether there's anything worth listening to on the radio since Saga Gold packed up...that kind of thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I do sometimes wonder if you have the same Bible as me, since the rich hoarding their wealth isn't seen as a good thing by God. God's economics are pretty socialist - do you think God is economically illiterate?

---

Here we have a perfect example of economic illiteracy. The rich "hoarding" their wealth. There are two points here...

1. Wealth is NOT a zero sum game. It isn't a pizza and if I have more, then you must have less.

2. The "hoarding" is done in a bank, which loans the money out to people and businesses. This keeps the economy moving which is the most important thing. The movement of money.

You also seem to want to link socialism to Christianity. Tough, because I'm not going to let you. My faith is secure. The Bible isn't an economics textbook and anyone who pretends it is is doing so for the basest possible reason... to mask a political agenda of their own.

What would Christ make of the deceit and dishonesty of fellow-travelling socialists using Christ's name to propogate their agenda?

Any true socialist will surely agree with Marxist dogma that materialism trumps the idealogical, and that therefore a faith in God is putting the ephemeral ideoligical position above the true materialist world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Isn't this a spin off of the old joke that if you put two Socialists in a room you'll get three ideological splits or whatever?

---

Whereas if you put three Tories in one room...???

---

Based on my experience? They'd probably have a cup of tea and engage in inane chit chat about their last coach trip, followed by a general discussion about the date of the next coffee morning.

---

Oh, I'm sure there are things that Tories would split over too- the rival claims of Scotts of Stow and Coopers of Stortford, whether there's anything worth listening to on the radio since Saga Gold packed up...that kind of thing.

---

As an aside, while we're running on this, do those of you who are grassroots members of the Labour party actually discuss politics?

Each Conservative Association has (or can have) a Conservative Policy Forum (or CPF) which meets once a month or every other month to discuss a policy brief sent by Central Office. This is designed to be a political discussion, but outside of CPF meetings I've found there to be little political discussion at all. I wondered whether the same is true in other parties?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...And Albertus, Attlee being a monarchist would prevent him from being a socialist....

---

I think, with the greatest respect, Jade, that I would rather look to Attlee than to you for a definition and indeed a model of what socialism means.

---

Perhaps don't ask me in the future, then? And please explain how monarchy fits in with socialist ideals then, I'm all ears.
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
It's probably discussed more in Conservative Future but I've never really bothered myself with them (I've always preferred to play with the grown ups).

When out canvassing, Labour voters are always marked down with 'S' for 'Socialist'.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Socialism means everyone has an equal chance to be head of state, and monarchy goes against this.

---

So your brand of Socialism means that everyone theoretically starts from the same place, but may end up in very different places with very different levels of wealth and power?

Wouldn't that be better defined as meritocracy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, let's not confuse Labour and socialism. Some of us aren't in the Labour party precisely because they're not a socialist party!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
It's probably discussed more in Conservative Future but I've never really bothered myself with them (I've always preferred to play with the grown ups).

When out canvassing, Labour voters are always marked down with 'S' for 'Socialist'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, let's not confuse Labour and socialism. Some of us aren't in the Labour party precisely because they're not a socialist party!

---

...and are therefore, I fear, destined to remain, as Aneurin Bevan* said of James Maxton, ‘pure but impotent … pure … at the price of impotence’

*Who I imagine even you would concede to have been some kind of Socialist

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
As an aside, while we're running on this, do those of you who are grassroots members of the Labour party actually discuss politics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, let's not confuse Labour and socialism. Some of us aren't in the Labour party precisely because they're not a socialist party!

---

...and are therefore, I fear, destined to remain, as Aneurin Bevan* said of James Maxton, ‘pure but impotent … pure … at the price of impotence’

*Who I imagine even you would concede to have been some kind of Socialist

---

Hum small socialist parties out do small conservative Scottish Presbyterian denominations in their factionalism. My local area has gone Green, much to my relief; when we were all socialist anarchist the ballot paper was long enough to be used as loo roll.

Not sure there was anything pure about it though.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Considering the youth branches of all the main parties go up to age 25, I think it's pretty rude to consider them not grown-up -

---

quote:

---

and Conservative Future almost certainly contains your future party leaders, so it's probably worth not being so patronising towards them.

---

quote:

---

Treating a political party like a social group is pretty ridiculous - you're there to change things, not stand about gossiping.

---

quote:

---

And most Labour voters aren't socialists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
You're assuming that being head of state = much more wealth and power. With socialism this wouldn't be the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Where do you think the Python team got the "JPF? Popular Front? Splitters!" stuff from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Where do you think the Python team got the "JPF? Popular Front? Splitters!" stuff from?

---

The far right. It was the time when the National Front split off into the BNP and then the National Democrats and whatever else. Apparently that bit of Life of Brian was very like NF meetings at the time.

---

quote:

---

The film pokes fun at revolutionary groups and 1970s British left-wing politics. "What the film does do is place modern stereotypes in a historical setting, which enables it to indulge in a number of sharp digs, particularly at trade unionists and guerilla organisations".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The loony right recognised themselves in that portrayal - well some of them did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The loony right recognised themselves in that portrayal - well some of them did.

---

Maybe, but it clearly wasn't aimed at them. It was obviously poking fun at leftist groups of the nice-but-nuts earnest kind. Look at the context. Were the loony right bending over backwards to accommodate men who decided they wanted to be known and addressed as women, brother (or sister)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The loony right recognised themselves in that portrayal - well some of them did.

---

Maybe, but it clearly wasn't aimed at them. It was obviously poking fun at leftist groups of the nice-but-nuts earnest kind. Look at the context. Were the loony right bending over backwards to accommodate men who decided they wanted to be known and addressed as women, brother (or sister)?

---

But not very accurately then. The extreme left is not known for its devotion to feminism or LGBT rights.

---

But Stan wasn't very symathetic was he?

"Where's the foetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?"

And when Judith suggests it could be symbolic of their struggle against oppression:

"It's symbolic of his struggle against reality!"


 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The loony right recognised themselves in that portrayal - well some of them did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The loony right recognised themselves in that portrayal - well some of them did.

---

I suspect and hope that the Pythons were more familiar with radical hippy and lefty groups than they were with far right groups.

As has been pointed out, small religious denominations can also recognise themselves in that portrayal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So who would have power and wealth in your society, Jade?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So who would have power and wealth in your society, Jade?

---

Everybody, obviously. Equal distribution of wealth is the whole point of socialism, surely you know this? And sorry for missing your question earlier, but there's no need to harass me. If you want to know more about socialism, there's always this thing called Google.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So who would have power and wealth in your society, Jade?

---

Everybody, obviously. Equal distribution of wealth is the whole point of socialism, surely you know this? And sorry for missing your question earlier, but there's no need to harass me. If you want to know more about socialism, there's always this thing called Google.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So who would have power and wealth in your society, Jade?

---

Everybody, obviously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


And if everybody gets the same regardless of what they do, why should anybody bother to go to work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
To your knowledge, has any political unit in history ever achieved this? (I thinking of at least a province or a city, not say a kibbutz.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if everybody gets the same regardless of what they do, why should anybody bother to go to work?

Doesn't sound like much of a society to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Well, people on the minimum wage or less still struggle in most days. Are you saying that people in more creative or fulfilling roles are only in it for the money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
]Yes, employers might have to create workplaces where people actually want to work!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You're assuming that people want to work in the first place. I don't. I work because I want to earn money so that I can afford to do the things I really want to do with my life. If working wouldn't make any difference to how much money I had, I wouldn't do it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
In an ideal society we'd hope there would be fewer jobs that have no point other than to contribute to somebody else's profits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Equal wealth ought to imply equal obligations, which would include an equal obligation to work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
In an ideal society we'd hope there would be fewer jobs that have no point other than to contribute to somebody else's profits. And rather more jobs that either contribute meaningfully to the common good or else are interesting to do for their own sake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
In an ideal society we'd hope there would be fewer jobs that have no point other than to contribute to somebody else's profits. And rather more jobs that either contribute meaningfully to the common good or else are interesting to do for their own sake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Equal wealth ought to imply equal obligations, which would include an equal obligation to work.

---

So you're going to force me to work. Nice. Bring on the gulag camps. What a wonderful society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
At the moment the amount you can leverage from your employer is proportional to a.) how hard you're prepared to work (which is within your control) and b.) the premium the market places on your skills (which isn't). In my fantasy universe it would be proportional to a.) alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
You're forgetting Marvin's pet delusion: that one day he might get the chance to be 'independently wealthy' (that is, to depend on the labour of others rather than of himself).

---

quote:

---

Therefore he is perfectly happy to be screwed by the system just so long as he thinks there's the slightest possiblity that he might become one of the screwers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
How does self-employment work in Ricardus's fantasy universe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A man can dream, can't he? Better a dream that never comes true than the certain knowledge that no way of bettering my circumstances can or will exist, which is what I'd have under socialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

You can then ask: so why should goods and services be subject to the free market, but not employment contracts? And I would reply: because an employment contract is a trade in a human being, and human beings are not goods and services.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But when I pay for a haircut, or for a plumber to fix my water leak, or for someone to mow my lawn, clean my house or care for my children while I'm out, it is precisely the services of a human being that I'm purchasing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
How much will you pay me to do them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
No, apart from a few marginal situations you're only paying for the service, not for the human being. There's nothing to stop the plumber subcontracting the work to one of his mates, or turning it down if he doesn't like it while accepting other commissions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fuck the common good, it's not worth shovelling shit for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think a true socialist would say your circumstances would improve as society as a whole got better (and therefore you got a proportional share in a larger pie).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fuck the common good, it's not worth shovelling shit for.

---

In that case, why care whether anybody bothers to work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fuck the common good, it's not worth shovelling shit for.

---

In that case, why care whether anybody bothers to work?

---

Well that's the thing, isn't it. The shit still needs to be shovelled, but who the hell is going to volunteer to do it without the economic incentive (i.e. without getting paid)?

This is where socialism always falls down. If everybody gets exactly the same pay regardless of whether they're a CEO, a data analyst, a street sweeper, an athelete, a miner or unemployed, then there's no reason for anyone to put in any extra effort or to do something they don't want to do. Virtually everyone is going to choose to do the easy jobs, or indeed to just sit around playing Xbox all day.

You could, of course, institute an "if you don't work, you don't get anything" law (passing over the fact that such a law is already in violation of the "everyone gets the same" ethos of socialism). In which case I'll declare myself a professional golfer. I'm working, because I'm playing golf. That's my job, and it doesn't matter if I'm any good at it or not. I'll hack round Carnoustie or Wentworth, finish last in every tournament, and still get paid the same as the winner. Job done. Money please.

So naturally that doesn't solve the problem. The inevitable next step is the government dictating exactly which jobs each of us will do. Welcome to the gulag, comrade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But you do keep on raising this parody of socialism and knocking it down. Much harder to argue against say, the happiest country in the world, Denmark, or the other social democratic Scandinavian states.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But you do keep on raising this parody of socialism and knocking it down. Much harder to argue against say, the happiest country in the world, Denmark, or the other social democratic Scandinavian states.

---

To clarify, are we holding out the Kingdom of Denmark as a good example of a socialist state?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The problem is, is that this isn't socialism. This is the thing you've made up so you can reject socialism every time someone says "Socialism is the answer to this problem".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Equal distribution of wealth is the whole point of socialism, surely you know this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Equal wealth ought to imply equal obligations, which would include an equal obligation to work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The problem is, is that this isn't socialism. This is the thing you've made up so you can reject socialism every time someone says "Socialism is the answer to this problem".

---

On the contrary, it's exactly what Jade and Ricardus have been advocating.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Equal distribution of wealth is the whole point of socialism, surely you know this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Equal wealth ought to imply equal obligations, which would include an equal obligation to work.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
One of the core tenets of socialism is dignity through labour

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
One of the core tenets of socialism is dignity through labour

---

One of the core tenets of Marvin is "get as much as you can for as little work as possible". I don't view work as good or dignified, I view it as a necessary evil. If I won the lottery I'd never work again, and I wouldn't feel any less dignified for that decision.

[added clarity]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well that's the thing, isn't it. The shit still needs to be shovelled, but who the hell is going to volunteer to do it without the economic incentive (i.e. without getting paid)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
One of the core tenets of socialism is dignity through labour

---

One of the core tenets of Marvin is "get as much as you can for as little work as possible". I don't view work as good or dignified, I view it as a necessary evil. If I won the lottery I'd never work again, and I wouldn't feel any less dignified for that decision.

[added clarity]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That pretty much applies to most of the creative types I know. I mean, JK Rowling, she's not short of a bob or two, and look, still working. That also applies to most of the science types I know too.

---

quote:

---

In fact, I'm willing to bet that most people with meaningful and/or satisfying work would continue with it in some form or other even if you handed them a sack of money. Or do something else equally meaningful and/or satisfying that could be classed as labour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That pretty much applies to most of the creative types I know. I mean, JK Rowling, she's not short of a bob or two, and look, still working. That also applies to most of the science types I know too.

---

Yes, some people are lucky enough that their favourite hobby also pays enough to be a job. Good for them, but they're hardly the majority.

quote:

---

In fact, I'm willing to bet that most people with meaningful and/or satisfying work would continue with it in some form or other even if you handed them a sack of money. Or do something else equally meaningful and/or satisfying that could be classed as labour.

---

I have no doubt that many people would continue to do their jobs even if they didn't need the money. I doubt there's enough of them to keep a whole country going while the rest of us take a five-decade vacation though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
My understanding is that this view was like Marx's, who had visions of people being able to do different things as well as work, such as paint.

---

Eight hours labour, eight hours rest, eight hours recreation. Again, impeccable socialist credentials.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Well, there is work and there is work isn't there?

There is work as in doing stuff that you are good at doing because it is useful or interesting or because your own peculiar mental illnesses compal you to do it or because ti makes you or someone else feel happy or sexy or contented or because to makes your garden grow or your house beautiful or your city safe or whatever. Which is a ncie job if you can get it. (Read News from Nowhere by William Morris!)

And there is work as in being some other man's servant and doing whatever you are ordered to whether it is of any interest to you or not and then seeing most of whatever benefit there is to anyone from your work going to the bosses.

If your work is all or mostly of the second sort then Marvin's reaction to it is inevitable. Indeed honourable. In that sort of situation identifying with the bosses requirements would be a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. Participation in your own oppression. You deserve to be bored and fed up with that kind of work, you are entitled to be angry at the social conditions that force you and others into it, you ought to want to escape from it.

What Marvin descibes is exactly what Marx called "alienation". Marvin is a socialist in embryio, he just doesn't realise it yet
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And no one's suggesting there are. However, you put the problem very well: the rich/ultra-rich are parasitic on working society, and the fewer there are of them, the better for everyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
If your work is all or mostly of the second sort then Marvin's reaction to it is inevitable. Indeed honourable. In that sort of situation identifying with the bosses requirements would be a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. Participation in your own oppression. You deserve to be bored and fed up with that kind of work, you are entitled to be angry at the social conditions that force you and others into it, you ought to want to escape from it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And there is work as in being some other man's servant and doing whatever you are ordered to whether it is of any interest to you or not and then seeing most of whatever benefit there is to anyone from your work going to the bosses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
]What I'm hearing is: you want to keep everybody poor so that they have to keep going to work. You don't want anybody to have a way out of the soul-crushing drudgery of having to go to a place they don't want to go and do shit they don't want to do for five or more days a week for the whole of their adult lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
My understanding is that this view was like Marx's, who had visions of people being able to do different things as well as work, such as paint.

---

Eight hours labour, eight hours rest, eight hours recreation. Again, impeccable socialist credentials.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
What Marvin descibes is exactly what Marx called "alienation". Marvin is a socialist in embryio, he just doesn't realise it yet

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
More socialism means less of what you're complaining about.

---

quote:

---

All your saying is "wah, why aren't I rich?" Which, with your hypercapitalist views, should be relatively easy to fix. Work harder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
More socialism means less of what you're complaining about.

---

Really? More socialism means less work and more time (and ability) to do whatever I want?

quote:

---

All your saying is "wah, why aren't I rich?" Which, with your hypercapitalist views, should be relatively easy to fix. Work harder.

---

Three promotions in five years says I'm moving in the right direction. With a bit of luck and a lot of hard work, I might even be in a position to retire by the time I'm 55. Obviously that's later than I'd prefer, but if it's the best I can get I'll take it.

If you're saying that socialism would allow me to retire at 45 (or even earlier) and spend the rest of my days travelling the world and playing golf or cricket then I'll gleefully become a socialist. Somehow I doubt that's what you have in mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You haven't made a million before you're thirty? What have you been doing with your life? But it must be your fault because you weren't working hard enough...

---

quote:

---

In answer to your second question, no. But socialism would have already allowed you to spend more of your time travelling the world and playing golf.

---

quote:

---

As it is, everything good about your workplace is a result of socialism, not capitalism. Paid sick leave, enforceable contracts, paid holidays, work breaks, decent working conditions... as I've said before, we've tried laissez faire capitalism before. It sucked. We rejected it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You haven't made a million before you're thirty? What have you been doing with your life? But it must be your fault because you weren't working hard enough...

---

I haven't got any skills or ideas that anyone would be willing to pay that kind of money for. Not sure how that's anyone else's fault.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

In answer to your second question, no. But socialism would have already allowed you to spend more of your time travelling the world and playing golf.

---

I don't believe that. For one thing, if I can't earn enough money to afford to do those things then how am I supposed to do them? Do you think anyone under a socialist government as outlined on this thread would be able to casually drop over two grand on an annual holiday?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

As it is, everything good about your workplace is a result of socialism, not capitalism. Paid sick leave, enforceable contracts, paid holidays, work breaks, decent working conditions... as I've said before, we've tried laissez faire capitalism before. It sucked. We rejected it.

---

We've tried and rejected full-on socialism as well. The answer is somewhere in the middle, but it's somewhere that allows people to get rich if they're skilled or lucky enough to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So working hard - the capitalist's refrain - isn't enough. Look everyone, we agree on something.

---

quote:

---

Not casually. But if that's how you wanted to spend your money, then yes. Again, you're fixated with the idea that a more equal society would be a poorer society: it's the other way around - the more inequitable a society is, the poorer the vast majority, including all the middle classes, are. If you saved your money, you could spend it on whatever you wanted.

---

quote:

---

And again, you seem to think that a socialist society would not allow people to get rich. You're wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fuck the common good, it's not worth shovelling shit for.

---

In that case, why care whether anybody bothers to work?

---

Well that's the thing, isn't it. The shit still needs to be shovelled, but who the hell is going to volunteer to do it without the economic incentive (i.e. without getting paid)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So working hard - the capitalist's refrain - isn't enough. Look everyone, we agree on something.

---

Sure. Not everyone can be a millionaire, just like not everyone can be a Premiership footballer. In both cases, if you haven't got the raw talent it doesn't matter how hard you train.

quote:

---

Not casually. But if that's how you wanted to spend your money, then yes. Again, you're fixated with the idea that a more equal society would be a poorer society: it's the other way around - the more inequitable a society is, the poorer the vast majority, including all the middle classes, are. If you saved your money, you could spend it on whatever you wanted.

---

You may have missed my point. My wife and I earn enough right now that we don't have to save for foreign holidays - we get to do all the other things we want, and there's enough left over for them anyway. Well, not this year but that's because we decided to spend seven grand on a new car instead. It's not a case of "pick the one thing you want the most and save up for it".

Maybe that means we're not in "the vast majority". I don't know, I haven't done the maths. But I doubt we'd be as well-off in your ideal society. Hell, you pretty much outright state that we wouldn't.

quote:

---

And again, you seem to think that a socialist society would not allow people to get rich. You're wrong.

---

What happened to all that stuff about the equal distribution of wealth then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I seem to spending all my time trying to correct your misconceptions, deliberate or otherwise, about socialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
If you think that communism is the only form of socialism then yes, you are right.

Clue: It isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

If you're saying that socialism would allow me to retire at 45 (or even earlier) and spend the rest of my days travelling the world and playing golf or cricket then I'll gleefully become a socialist. Somehow I doubt that's what you have in mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
If you think that communism is the only form of socialism then yes, you are right.

Clue: It isn't.

---

So Jade and Ricardus were lying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
In other words, 'if socialism was in my own self-interest I'd be for it; since it won't benefit me I'm agin it.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
In other words, 'if socialism was in my own self-interest I'd be for it; since it won't benefit me I'm agin it.'

---

Yes. Deal with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I seem to spending all my time trying to correct your misconceptions, deliberate or otherwise, about socialism.

---

You specifically stated that in a socialist society I wouldn't be rich enough to casually drop two grand on a foreign holiday. Which would mean I'd be worse off than I am now. Was that a misconception?

---

quote:

---

No longer do Norway and Sweden have exceptionally large state sectors. It's true that their tax rates are relatively high. The Swedish government takes 44 per cent of GDP, the Norwegian 42 per cent. But here's the thing: both governments are running surpluses. In Britain, by contrast, the state takes 37 per cent of GDP but spends 47 per cent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Marvin, I'd be astonished if you wouldn't, in absolute terms, be significantly better off under a Scandinavian-style socialist state than under our current social order. What is absolutely certain is that your standard of living, (taking into consideration time spent at work, social security, standards of education for your kids if you have any, number of paid holidays, lower crime levels and other general benefits of living in a kindlier, more cooperative, less competitive society) would be incomparably to your advantage. It isn't a zero-sum game especially when non monetary advantages of socialism are counted. I'd take a guess that I earn more than you (I happily pay 40% UK tax) and even I'd probably be better off if I lived in Sweden or Denmark.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
And of course there's no Christian Democrat tradition here.

---

quote:

---

An English Socialist government will transform the nation from top to bottom, but it will still bear all over it the unmistakable marks of our own civilization, the peculiar civilization which I discussed earlier in this book.
It will not be doctrinaire, nor even logical. It will abolish the House of Lords, but quite probably will not abolish the Monarchy. It will leave anachronisms and loose ends everywhere, the judge in his ridiculous horsehair wig and the lion and the unicorn on the soldier's cap-buttons. It will not set up any explicit class dictatorship. It will group itself round the old Labour Party and its mass following will be in the trade unions, but it will draw into it most of the middle class and many of the younger sons of the bourgeoisie. Most of its directing brains will come from the new indeterminate class of skilled workers, technical experts, airmen, scientists, architects and journalists, the people who feel at home in the radio and ferro-concrete age. But it will never lose touch with the tradition of compromise and the belief in a law that is above the State. It will shoot traitors, but it will give them a solemn trial beforehand and occasionally it will acquit them. It will crush any open revolt promptly and cruelly, but it will interfere very little with the spoken and written word. Political parties with different names will still exist, revolutionary sects will still be publishing their newspapers and making as little impression as ever. It will disestablish the Church, but will not persecute religion. It will retain a vague reverence for the Christian moral code, and from time to time will refer to England as ‘a Christian country’. The Catholic Church will war against it, but the Nonconformist sects and the bulk of the Anglican Church will be able to come to terms with it. It will show a power of assimilating the past which will shock foreign observers and sometimes make them doubt whether any revolution has happened.
But all the same it will have done the essential thing. It will have nationalized industry, scaled down incomes, set up a classless educational system. Its real nature will be apparent from the hatred which the surviving rich men of the world will feel for it. It will aim not at disintegrating the Empire but at turning it into a federation of Socialist states, freed not so much from the British flag as from the money-lender, the dividend-drawer and the wooden-headed British official. Its war strategy will be totally different from that of any property-ruled state, because it will not be afraid of the revolutionary after-effects when any existing régime is brought down. It will not have the smallest scruple about attacking hostile neutrals or stirring up native rebellion in enemy colonies. It will fight in such a way that even if it is beaten its memory will be dangerous to the victor, as the memory of the French Revolution was dangerous to Metternich's Europe. The dictators will fear it as they could not fear the existing British régime, even if its military strength were ten times what it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:


There is trouble, though, with trying to reconcile rural Toryism with the left. One such issue is housing. Country-dwellers tend to be opposed to the introduction of new housing, arguing house prices are too high because households are too small due to divorce rather than because people insist on having too big gardens and houses rather than living in flats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball channelling Orwell:


George Orwell, setting out his vision for post-war Britain in the Lion and the Unicorn, doesn't insist on abolishing the monarchy -

quote:

---

An English Socialist government will [...] draw into it most of the middle class and many of the younger sons of the bourgeoisie. Most of its directing brains will come from the new indeterminate class of skilled workers, technical experts, airmen, scientists, architects and journalists, the people who feel at home in the radio and ferro-concrete age. But it will never lose touch with the tradition of compromise and the belief in a law that is above the State. It will shoot traitors, but it will give them a solemn trial beforehand and occasionally it will acquit them. It will crush any open revolt promptly and cruelly, but it will interfere very little with the spoken and written word. Political parties with different names will still exist, revolutionary sects will still be publishing their newspapers and making as little impression as ever. It will disestablish the Church, but will not persecute religion. It will retain a vague reverence for the Christian moral code, and from time to time will refer to England as ‘a Christian country’. The Catholic Church will war against it, but the Nonconformist sects and the bulk of the Anglican Church will be able to come to terms with it. It will show a power of assimilating the past which will shock foreign observers and sometimes make them doubt whether any revolution has happened.

---

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It will not have the smallest scruple about attacking hostile neutrals or stirring up native rebellion in enemy colonies.

---

---

 

---

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:


There is trouble, though, with trying to reconcile rural Toryism with the left. One such issue is housing. Country-dwellers tend to be opposed to the introduction of new housing, arguing house prices are too high because households are too small due to divorce rather than because people insist on having too big gardens and houses rather than living in flats.

---

ETA another conflict in pasting up the seams between "tory" and "socialist" is over public footpaths. Vade Mecum touched on this in talking about skepticism towards the NT (I can think of a lot of reasons one might be sceptical towards the NT but could you elaborate?)

A lot of country dwellers are sceptical over such things, seeing them as an anachronistic legacy of a past time, whereas a lot of left-leaning city dwellers see it as part of their British patriotic right to "walk the Queen's Highway" as they put it, with an idealistic view of the British countryside as some sort of idyll, a common weal that everyone can share.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Marvin, I'd be astonished if you wouldn't, in absolute terms, be significantly better off under a Scandinavian-style socialist state than under our current social order. What is absolutely certain is that your standard of living, (taking into consideration time spent at work, social security, standards of education for your kids if you have any, number of paid holidays, lower crime levels and other general benefits of living in a kindlier, more cooperative, less competitive society) would be incomparably to your advantage. It isn't a zero-sum game especially when non monetary advantages of socialism are counted. I'd take a guess that I earn more than you (I happily pay 40% UK tax) and even I'd probably be better off if I lived in Sweden or Denmark.

---

You're defining "better off" in non-monetary terms. Which is your prerogative, of course. But I'm a Jerry Maguire kind of guy - show me the money.

Oh, and I work about 40 hours a week, get 40 days off a year (including bank holidays), don't have kids and haven't been the victim of a crime this century. So that only leaves "other general benefits of living in a kindlier, more cooperative, less competitive society", which is just socialist-speak for "can't we all just get along".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It isn't a zero-sum game especially when non monetary advantages of socialism are counted. I'd take a guess that I earn more than you (I happily pay 40% UK tax) and even I'd probably be better off if I lived in Sweden or Denmark.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
If you think that communism is the only form of socialism then yes, you are right.

Clue: It isn't.

---

So Jade and Ricardus were lying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It isn't a zero-sum game especially when non monetary advantages of socialism are counted. I'd take a guess that I earn more than you (I happily pay 40% UK tax) and even I'd probably be better off if I lived in Sweden or Denmark.

---

Why don't you live in Sweden or Denmark? You are convinced by your analysis that you'd be better off there, yet you remain in the UK. Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You are happy, it seems, for Joe the self-employed plumber to be able to advertise for business, and to receive a greater or lesser amount of business, and hence income, according to his merits and reputation. However, you would like his brother, Moe, who works for a plumbing company as an employee, to be paid the same amount regardless of whether or not he's any good at plumbing.

If Joe is a bad plumber, you're happy for him to have no income, whereas if Moe is a bad plumber, you expect him to be paid the same as Eddie Expert.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

Maybe the High Tory socialists really want a fantasy world where everyone lives in a village the local squire is the benevolent patriarch of a relatively small estate, but (in contrast with, say, the Edwardian era) the NHS exists and comprehensive state education makes university a possibility even for the children of the working classes. Percy Dearmer is the local vicar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
If you think that communism is the only form of socialism then yes, you are right.

Clue: It isn't.

---

So Jade and Ricardus were lying?

---

No. They are describing aform of socialism. But not all forms of socialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
And of course there's no Christian Democrat tradition here.

---

I think this is something that we've been touching upon but darting around?

I know a number of people - mostly who grew up in the country - who are religious, believe in the common weal (i.e. everybody has an social obligation to everyone else), who think that a welfare state resembling the Beveridge report in Spirit if not Letter and in particular the NHS and free, good quality public education is a Good Thing, that traditional Family values are a good thing (which manifests itself in terms of thinking that adoption is Good; it tends to be undecided on SSM but sometimes thinks it is Good because Marriage is Good and sometimes a bad one because, well, traditional family values), that Europe is a good thing (typically Europe in a vague nebulous sense rather than necessarily the European institutions that we have at the moment, but committed at very least to cultural sharing and movement of goods and labour, on the grounds that Europe has a shared Christian heritage) and is very strongly against Soviet-style communism and against the nationalization of things like coal and steel, and tends to be monarchist - in particular thinking that a country is a country because it is a group of people with allegiance to a monarch and not because they are of any particular ethnicity or speak any particular language.

---

That's me.

Well, the whole Civic Nationalism thing is what Canada has always done, we've always had to. It's the only thing that makes the French/English thing work and later on it made Immigration work.

It also describes the whole right-wing of Canada's leftist New Democratic Party. Most of that comes from the Social Gospel Movement in the first half of the 20th Century. It's since become a standard United Church of Canada position for those of a traditionalist bent. We are the Church of Public Education.

It fits the Saskatchewan and Manitoba NDP's to a T.

The federal NDP's current leader, Tom Mulcair, also comes from this wing though he's an Irish Roman Catholic from Montreal.

Insofar as all political parties are coalitions, that's where I stand in the NDP's coalition. The other parts are the secular Social Democrats/Champagne Socialists (most of the Quebec and urban Ontario wings), the hardcore entryist Trotskyites (the Socialist Caucus) and social reformer/urban radical Waffle leftovers.
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

(And IME it is very common for tradesmen to send substitutes. But even your local plumber has, I imagine, decided not to send out substitutes because doing everything himself has proved commercially successful, not because he is inherently prevented from doing so by the nature of self-employment.)

---

quote:

---

b.) You can't really compare employment and self-employment income anyway, because the risk/reward ratios are different. Entrepreneurs generally bear most of the risks of the enterprise and stand to gain from most of the return on equity. Employees don't.

---

quote:

---

c.) I said you should be able to negotiate your wage on the basis of effort put in. If incompetent Moe is crap because he can't be bothered, then he puts himself in a poor negotiating position and doesn't earn much.

---

quote:

---

My main gripe is that an expert plumber shouldn't earn less than a crap investment broker just because investment broking is more highly valued by the market.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's not that we want to move somewhere where socialism is practised because we personally will benefit from it. It's that we want to introduce socialism where we are, even if we personally take a financial hit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's not that we want to move somewhere where socialism is practised because we personally will benefit from it. It's that we want to introduce socialism where we are, even if we personally take a financial hit.

---

It has been claimed in this discussion that society would be better off in many ways - better standard of living, more efficient, more productive etc. - with a Swedish or Danish system rather than the current British one. Can you not demonstrate the truth of this claim by moving you and your fellow-travellers to Sweden, and then out-competing the market capitalists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It has been claimed in this discussion that society would be better off in many ways - better standard of living, more efficient, more productive etc. - with a Swedish or Danish system rather than the current British one. Can you not demonstrate the truth of this claim by moving you and your fellow-travellers to Sweden, and then out-competing the market capitalists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Of course you can - it's one of the things that every self-employed person does when deciding whether to go into business for himself. As you say, you also have to account for the risk - it's not just a direct comparison between average take-home pay.

---

quote:

---

But what if incompetent Moe is crap because he has poor manual dexterity - if he's keen and eager and tries hard, but is just bad at plumbing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
And of course there's no Christian Democrat tradition here.

---

I think this is something that we've been touching upon but darting around?

I know a number of people - mostly who grew up in the country - who are religious, believe in the common weal (i.e. everybody has an social obligation to everyone else), who think that a welfare state resembling the Beveridge report in Spirit if not Letter and in particular the NHS and free, good quality public education is a Good Thing, that traditional Family values are a good thing (which manifests itself in terms of thinking that adoption is Good; it tends to be undecided on SSM but sometimes thinks it is Good because Marriage is Good and sometimes a bad one because, well, traditional family values), that Europe is a good thing (typically Europe in a vague nebulous sense rather than necessarily the European institutions that we have at the moment, but committed at very least to cultural sharing and movement of goods and labour, on the grounds that Europe has a shared Christian heritage) and is very strongly against Soviet-style communism and against the nationalization of things like coal and steel, and tends to be monarchist - in particular thinking that a country is a country because it is a group of people with allegiance to a monarch and not because they are of any particular ethnicity or speak any particular language.

---

That's me.

Well, the whole Civic Nationalism thing is what Canada has always done, we've always had to. It's the only thing that makes the French/English thing work and later on it made Immigration work.

It also describes the whole right-wing of Canada's leftist New Democratic Party. Most of that comes from the Social Gospel Movement in the first half of the 20th Century. It's since become a standard United Church of Canada position for those of a traditionalist bent. We are the Church of Public Education.

It fits the Saskatchewan and Manitoba NDP's to a T.

The federal NDP's current leader, Tom Mulcair, also comes from this wing though he's an Irish Roman Catholic from Montreal.

Insofar as all political parties are coalitions, that's where I stand in the NDP's coalition. The other parts are the secular Social Democrats/Champagne Socialists (most of the Quebec and urban Ontario wings), the hardcore entryist Trotskyites (the Socialist Caucus) and social reformer/urban radical Waffle leftovers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
And of course there's no Christian Democrat tradition here.

---

I think this is something that we've been touching upon but darting around?

I know a number of people - mostly who grew up in the country - who are religious, believe in the common weal (i.e. everybody has an social obligation to everyone else), who think that a welfare state resembling the Beveridge report in Spirit if not Letter and in particular the NHS and free, good quality public education is a Good Thing, that traditional Family values are a good thing (which manifests itself in terms of thinking that adoption is Good; it tends to be undecided on SSM but sometimes thinks it is Good because Marriage is Good and sometimes a bad one because, well, traditional family values), that Europe is a good thing (typically Europe in a vague nebulous sense rather than necessarily the European institutions that we have at the moment, but committed at very least to cultural sharing and movement of goods and labour, on the grounds that Europe has a shared Christian heritage) and is very strongly against Soviet-style communism and against the nationalization of things like coal and steel, and tends to be monarchist - in particular thinking that a country is a country because it is a group of people with allegiance to a monarch and not because they are of any particular ethnicity or speak any particular language.

---

That's me.

Well, the whole Civic Nationalism thing is what Canada has always done, we've always had to. It's the only thing that makes the French/English thing work and later on it made Immigration work.

It also describes the whole right-wing of Canada's leftist New Democratic Party. Most of that comes from the Social Gospel Movement in the first half of the 20th Century. It's since become a standard United Church of Canada position for those of a traditionalist bent. We are the Church of Public Education.

It fits the Saskatchewan and Manitoba NDP's to a T.

The federal NDP's current leader, Tom Mulcair, also comes from this wing though he's an Irish Roman Catholic from Montreal.

Insofar as all political parties are coalitions, that's where I stand in the NDP's coalition. The other parts are the secular Social Democrats/Champagne Socialists (most of the Quebec and urban Ontario wings), the hardcore entryist Trotskyites (the Socialist Caucus) and social reformer/urban radical Waffle leftovers.

---

SPK, are you from the prairies of Canada, if you don't mind me asking? The NDP is interesting on a worldwide scale as is a Social-Democratic party of rural origin, perhaps the most famous such party. And I would not be at all surprised if your Prairian NDP had plenty in common with Garrison Keillor's Minnesotan DFLers.

What about Vancouver - plenty of Champagne Socialists there too I imagine? (I have a mental image of Vancouver as being "like" Oregon/the Bay Area, i.e. somewhat hippie, "green" and secular. This may be somewhat unfounded?)

Interesting to hear about QC - I was under the impression that Québecoise politics ultimately boiled down to the single issue of unionism vs nationalism, with unionists tending to be more pro-immigration, pro-diversity (e.g. in non-Roman Catholic religion - muslims being allowed to wear headscarfs and Sikhs turbans etc also being less monolithically francophone and allowing other languages), communitarian (e.g. "there is such a thing as society, it merely is not the same thing as government") or libertarian, as opposed to statist (eg the gouvernemaman) with the Parti libéral being the unionist party and the Parti Québecois being the nationalist party. So it's interesting to hear that the NDP (PND?) have a way in in Québec, I thought the nearest equivalent to the NDP in Québec was Amir Khadir etc?

It seems that what you describe as Civic Nationalism is very unpopular in Québec unfortunately! It seems that there is a lot of resentment between the anglophone and francophone communities of Québec - although I suppose I have probably got a skewed perspective through the blogosphere, where keyboard warriors abound. Also, there seems to be serious anti-immigrant sentiment in Québec - something ranging from "immigration is a way for the federal government to keep the ratio of francophones to anglophones in Québec roughly what it was before the quiet revolution in response to anglophones leaving Québec" to downright islamophobia, not to mention the Hérouxville affair...

ETA reached end of file while parsing
ETA the phrase "(e.g. \"there is such a thing as society, it merely is not the same thing as government\")" to the above and to add the following;

In Canada, do you have cultural exchanges between anglophone and francophone Canada? In Europe we introduced such things to encourage people, especially young people, not to have negative opinions of foreigners and also to learn one another's language, with varying degrees of success. Also, do you have Taizé in Canada? Taizé tries to do the same thing to a certain extent, and also be interdenominational. IIRC there was a pan-North-American Taizé meeting in Chicago a while ago; I can't think of any Canadian Brothers, Francophone or Anglophone, off the top of my head.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I'm from Ontario, but my parents are United Church ministers, as was one of my grandfathers and the other was an Elder for decades and one grandmother was a Chair of Presbytery.

They don't call the United Church the NDP-at-Prayer for nothing. But the United Church came first, then we gave birth to the NDP. In French it's NPD.

The NDP's Quebec wing is the Quebec Federal Section, we only compete for federal seats in the province, not for the provincial Legislative Assembly. There are plans to relaunch a provincial-level Quebec NDP, but as Quebec has a minority government right now those plans are on hold, and will be until after 2015.

The NDP walked away with 57 of Quebec's 75 seats in the Canadian House of Commons in 2011, the "Orange Wave". It was the biggest political upset in Canadian electoral history in decades. It also made nearly the entire political chattering class vomit because they didn't see it coming; until 2011 it was just crazy pipe dream.

Quebec is a weird province. You have Montreal which is the most secular and leftist city in North America (yes, more leftist than SF or Portland), some moderate areas in the Eastern Townships towards Sherbrooke and around Ottawa, and then a rather conservative but even more insular Francophone rural hinterland.

For reasons which are very complicated, mostly that the Duplessis regime in 1940's was so deeply pro-business pro-capitalism, anti-goverment and pro-Catholic (and so deeply corrupt), Quebec nationalism has been Social Democratic. But by 2011 Quebeckers had had enough of the "National Question". Meanwhile the NDP had learned to speak French and was Social Democratic, minus the separatism. Bingo. It worked like magic.

Canada has had exchanges for decades, in various forms. The various programmes of Official Bilingualism have frankly worked, generationally the young in Quebec aren't afraid of French disappearing and Anglophones elsewhere have embraced bilingual politicians and bilingual federal politics. It's an age divide more than a ideology. The era of unilingual federal party leaders is over, dead, gone and it's never coming back.

The blogs, well, most of the time they are drivel. Some are ok, most are .

As I said, Quebec has a large, very insular rural hinterland outside Montreal where juvenile ideas get more plan than anywhere else in the country.

I lost what little respect for Pauline Marois over the Turban Affair. She is either an idiot or a racist or both and I dearly hope she loses a confidence vote and loses her seat while she's at it.
 

---

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:


There is trouble, though, with trying to reconcile rural Toryism with the left. One such issue is housing. Country-dwellers tend to be opposed to the introduction of new housing, arguing house prices are too high because households are too small due to divorce rather than because people insist on having too big gardens and houses rather than living in flats.

---

ETA another conflict in pasting up the seams between "tory" and "socialist" is over public footpaths. Vade Mecum touched on this in talking about skepticism towards the NT (I can think of a lot of reasons one might be sceptical towards the NT but could you elaborate?)

A lot of country dwellers are sceptical over such things, seeing them as an anachronistic legacy of a past time, whereas a lot of left-leaning city dwellers see it as part of their British patriotic right to "walk the Queen's Highway" as they put it, with an idealistic view of the British countryside as some sort of idyll, a common weal that everyone can share.

---

That's interesting. If I understand this High Tory Socialism at all, the tradition of public footpaths is exactly the sort of thing they'd be super enthusiastic about, as it both acknowledges private property and requires the owners of property to defer to the common good (in terms of specific rights rather than as abstract idea, which is probably important).

It probably helps that system has a pleasantly pre-modern feel. If I were to be very cynical, I would suggest that a rather romantic contempt for modernism is at the heart of this political ideology. This alone would be enough to distinguish it from more ordinary socialism, which tends to be very much enamored with modernity in all its forms. It's probably true to say that English socialists have been the most likely to be exceptions to that rule, although there are plenty of examples of the socialism=modernity and vice versa principle even in England (the Festival of Britain is perhaps the most obvious).

Maybe the High Tory socialists really want a fantasy world where everyone lives in a village the local squire is the benevolent patriarch of a relatively small estate, but (in contrast with, say, the Edwardian era) the NHS exists and comprehensive state education makes university a possibility even for the children of the working classes. Percy Dearmer is the local vicar.

Actually, when I put that in writing, it sounds quite a bit like the English/Anglican version of Éamon de Valera's image of 'The Ireland we would have' ('the home of a people who valued material wealth only as a basis for right living, of a people who, satisfied with frugal comfort, devoted their leisure to the things of the spirit – a land whose countryside would be bright with cosy homesteads, whose fields and villages would be joyous with the sounds of industry, with the romping of sturdy children, the contest of athletic youths and the laughter of happy maidens', etc). De Valera's model was quite a bit more authoritarian than what I outlined above, of course, (in places it's dangerously close to Francoism), but that's surely at least in part attributable to the differences between highly centralized ultramontane Roman Catholicism and the latitudinarian Church of England (although to add caveat to caveat, many of the most enthusiastic proponents of this 'England we would have' were non-ultramontane Roman Catholics like Chesterton).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE]Conrad Noel,[/URL] although his politics were considerably to the left of Tony Benn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:
Wasn't Chesterton a fascist of sorts, at least economically if he didn't go in for the racist aspects of fascism?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0