The Next UK Government... That Isn’t the Tories

[Video Game Fan 2000]

But the liberals of yesteryear were not the centrist yas queen liberals of today were they?

In a lot of ways, they were worse - they were frequently racist and pro-colonial as decolonisation was a right wing issue in a lot of nations at the time, often they wouldn't have 'liberal' views on sexuality or gender at all, especially in the UK.

But its not about being right or good, it was about recognising material reality and acting upon that and not an ideology and the fact that reconstructing after war meant there was an incentive to recognise material reality rather than brush it away. Today's liberals are ideologically driven, and ultimately believe economic reality is just another phantom that can be dealt with by changing social attitudes rather than being our actual shared reality. They act like economics is just a boring way of speaking rather than descriptive of the factors that describe whether a man with a broken leg skips a meal or not. Its just language and talk to them. Which is amazing because their guiding influence and outsized status comes through lobbying and thinktanks that are often directly funded by the energy and finance sectors.

[TrenterPercenter]

Most mainstream liberals are completely Meritocracy-Pilled and believe huge wealth and quality of life disparities are a motor that drives societies, life is sieve to sort the hard working talented wheat from the lazy feckless idiot chaff. Trump voters are dumb, see but voting for Biden was like going to Hogwarts. Their ideology is Yas Queen Slay King and trumpetting either megacelebrities or megawealthy billionaires. The idea of Elizabeth Warren or Kier Starmer or Emmanuelle Macron preciding over a 21st century equivalent of the Beveridge report is pure science fiction.

Too much focus is given to these other groups; I'm not sure any of it is terribly relevant other than Starmer who yes becomes a big problem IF you are using the Labour Party as your vehicle for socialist change.  You make compromises and bargain with these people but on your terms and potential advantages.  The 1948 Labour Party was opportunistic in this fashion; they were not an all things to all men party and would not be accepted by a lot of the modern leftwing today; the NHS had broad appeal to the population that was key.

The appeal I'd make to the lefties on CaB is don't be misanthropes. Don't fall for this "most people are bad" or "people are dumb" bullshit. We already have a leftwinger that does that stuff and its Slavoj Zizek, one is enough. Believe in the goodness and ability of your fellows is a more 'radical transgressive act' than anything going at the moment. Stare at the internet long enough will have you believing in the cruelty and stupidity of all humans. Don't believe it. Don't fall for the meritocracy lie about a minority of good or decent people with mega powers of empathy, leave Hogwarts to Glinner.

Yes, all of this but it's more than that it's about being organised and represented.  We need to agree on the terms and conditions of what the left is; what its long-term aims are and what its short-term aims are.  It needs a system of appraisal of what is acceptable and reach a consensus on this that is feasible and as simplistic as possible.  It shouldn't be complicated to understand what it means, in the broad sense, to be leftwing, yet the problems that exist in the world should be seen as complicated and nuanced.  Once the left is psychologically organised itself it can start going about appealing and persuading an electoral base that can get it some power.

[Zetetic]

That a huge amount of suffering has to be undergone before we see even the smallest of positive changes for the masses.

I think there's something interesting that for a great many British people, the Second World War was mostly a massive alleviation of suffering - certainly initially, it's a sudden and near immediate resolution to the mass "forced idleness" that they'd endured through the '30s.

At least some of the political feeling in '45 is less about "what we endured after '39" than "we cannot go back to what we suffering before '39", and having seen that the government could fix mass unemployment in a couple of months and had previously chosen not to for a decade-and-a-half.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

But using the 1948 labour party as an example proves the point I'm trying to make: all parties were speaking the same language, they were all commited to the same reality. When it came to the liberal-socialist argument the liberals and socialists fundamentally agreed on the material necessities but disagreed with how to achieve them and the extent to which it was worth trying to achieve them, the extent of one's moral obligation to fellow citizens, whether one should focus on raising living standards for the current generation or a generation two or three down the line, etc.

Now there is a total gap between people saying stuff like "if I don't take insulin, I'll die. And if I die, I not only don't exist any more which is bad for me but also bad for everyone but that would take my entire family out of the workforce" and being met with ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL DENIAL OF REALITY by liberals, who don't even acknowledge that this is a problem. The stuff about Labour and the gambling industry in the thread is a great example of what I mean. People are saying "these privately owned businesses suck wealth and life out real communities" and giving examples of the human and material cost of those vampires, then the response is "we're all together in this vibrant town and well represented in a diverse inclusive workforce thats like a family and creating opportunities so why not have a cuppa :emoji:" - they might as well be speaking fucking Klingon for all it has to do with life here on planet earth. The socialists have a commitment to reality and the liberals just have words, words, words.

[TrenterPercenter]

When it came to the liberal-socialist argument the liberals and socialists fundamentally agreed on the material necessities but disagreed with how to achieve them

Equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes.

Plus ca change you are over egging this imo but like I say it doesn't matter the leftwing in and outside the Labour need to be concerned with their offer to the public; what is feasible, attractive and workable you don't need to worry about whether the Liberals agree at this stage.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

I don't think opportunities/outcomes was codified in the liberal world view until the 1970s.

The Beveridge Report, which is a liberal document through and through, ignored that distinction and talked about lacks in education and quality of life as evils in themselves rather than causes of greater economic or social burdens. Also key was the idea that breaking up problems into sectional or demographic interests was ultimately to the detriment of those interests in the long run.

The opportunities/outcomes distinction is incredibly yankee and where you start seeing human life in terms of the market, in terms of "outcomes" in terms of career and income rather than quality of life, culture and education. Along with "opportunities" which ultimately just means what higher ed you can afford and what your starting pay will be when you graduate. It's not meant to be about the THINGS you own and what you can afford.

Liberals used to be a lot broader minded than they are now. And they were still the enemy.

[Mr Farenheit]

Millions of Russians died so that we could have a national health service

That was nice of them

[Johnny Yesno]

I think there's something interesting that for a great many British people, the Second World War was mostly a massive alleviation of suffering - certainly initially, it's a sudden and near immediate resolution to the mass "forced idleness" that they'd endured through the '30s.

At least some of the political feeling in '45 is less about "what we endured after '39" than "we cannot go back to what we suffering before '39", and having seen that the government could fix mass unemployment in a couple of months and had previously chosen not to for a decade-and-a-half.

Not just mass unemployment but that the resources could suddenly be found to deal with an existential threat. Which begged the question: if nazis, why not disease?

It was the proto-magic money tree.

[Johnny Yesno]

Don't fall for the meritocracy lie about a minority of good or decent people with magic powers of empathy

And don't forget the original meaning of the word 'meritocracy' and whose father coined it.

[TrenterPercenter]

That was nice of them

They are a helpful sort.

[Shit Good Nose]

and whose father coined it.

Your mum (?)

[AllisonSays]

The formation of the NHS was consequent of the two world wars, surely that's not even a question? The Eastern front didn't know they would cause the NHS but that's history baby. The other function of the welfare state, i think anyway, was to stop a bigger push for communism on the part of the working class in Britain, but that's maybe a wee bit more complicated of an argument.

[Shit Good Nose]

What have the Russians ever done for us?  Except creating the NHS, etc.

[Fambo Number Mive]

The one thing that most us agree about in the political threads is that we're in for a long, long period of Tory rule. But when a change finally comes, whether in ten years or fifty, what will it look like do you think? A resurgent Labour Party? A coalition of desperation? Something even more right wing than the Tories? Or will our grandchildren's grandchildren be celebrating 200 years of Tory rule in their rented Sleep Booth?

I can't imagine Britain not being under Tory rule for the next fifty years given how Starmer has utterly neutered the Labour Party as a force for change. However, I think the Tories will move further and further to the right to become a modern day British Union of Fascists. I do wonder whether there will still be elections in the next decade. Sadly I don't think many people in Britain will care until it is too late, England is full of centrist bootlickers who find Have I Got News For You cutting edge satire and think Jacob Rees Mogg is jolly funny. Can imagine Have I Got News For You series 100, with a withered Ian Hislop and Paul Merton, responding to the news that all parties other than the Tories are banned by making a rubbish joke about Jeremy Corbyn before joking with guest presenter Nigel Farage.

[Shit Good Nose]

I can't imagine Britain not being under Tory rule for the next fifty years given how Starmer has utterly neutered the Labour Party as a force for change. However, I think the Tories will move further and further to the right to become a modern day British Union of Fascists. I do wonder whether there will still be elections in the next decade. Sadly I don't think many people in Britain will care until it is too late, England is full of centrist bootlickers who find Have I Got News For You cutting edge satire and think Jacob Rees Mogg is jolly funny. Can imagine Have I Got News For You series 100, with a withered Ian Hislop and Paul Merton, responding to the news that all parties other than the Tories are banned by making a rubbish joke about Jeremy Corbyn before joking with guest presenter Nigel Farage.

As I've said many times before, Rees-Mogg is my local MP and he credits his increase in public popularity and rise through the ranks of the party solely - SOLELY - to his appearances on HIGNFY.  He has no desires on being PM though, because he has far more power behind the scenes.  Dead soon.  Us I mean, of course.

[Kankurette]

I can't watch that show anymore simply because it treated people like JRM and Johnson like harmless buffoons and now the genie is out of the bottle.

[finnquark]

The failure of the Khrushchev reforms and the evident lack of drive under Brezhnev gave rise to a more aggressive Liberalism in the West, I reckon.

[Shit Good Nose]

I can't watch that show anymore simply because it treated people like JRM and Johnson like harmless buffoons and now the genie is out of the bottle.

Yeah, but you suggest that to Merton, Hislop and the producers and they just look at you as if you're eating a fresh hot turd.

I mean Rees-Mogg himself has actually said it publicly on numerous occasions and they still don't think they can be blamed.

[Theremin]

The failure of the Khrushchev reforms and the evident lack of drive under Brezhnev gave rise to a more aggressive Liberalism in the West, I reckon.

That sounds interesting, can you say more?

I know a little about the Stalin Period in Russia, and a little about Perestroika, but not much of the in-between.

[Theremin]

Yeah, but you suggest that to Merton, Hislop and the producers and they just look at you as if you're eating a fresh hot turd.

I mean Rees-Mogg himself has actually said it publicly on numerous occasions and they still don't think they can be blamed.

That reminds me of this essay, on the mistaken way in which British satire views itself:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n14/jonathan-coe/sinking-giggling-into-the-sea

[BlodwynPig]

Yeah, but you suggest that to Merton, Hislop and the producers and they just look at you as if you're eating a fresh hot turd.

I mean Rees-Mogg himself has actually said it publicly on numerous occasions and they still don't think they can be blamed.

Well the (first) Tub of Lard never became PM.

[finnquark]

That sounds interesting, can you say more?

I know a little about the Stalin Period in Russia, and a little about Perestroika, but not much of the in-between.

Khrushchev was quite optimistic, and alongside de-Stalinisation of society (which he announced to the party in 1956 through the Secret Speech), he also attempted to revitalise the economy. Some of his economic reforms were intended to de-centralise the planning system away from Moscow and to establish regional ownership of the plans. There was also some intention to allow decision making at a factory level, which was unheard of under Stalin. During the late 50s and early 60s, the USSR seemed ahead in the space race and even aspects of the arms race (the Gaither Report spooked the US into believing this to be the case). Khrushchev and VP Nixon held the Kitchen Debate in Moscow where Khrushchev projected a sense of confidence about the USSR's ability to surpass the West, and there was a kernel of truth to it. Khrushchev emphasised light industry/consumer goods and even began to move away from communal housing, so there were some improvements in living standards.

However, due to several factors, the reforms were neither full nor permanent. One of thet things K wanted to do initially was reduce the insane proportion of GDP spent on the military, and though there were some cuts early on, they were reversed. The economic reforms never fully took off, because K was still ultimately guided by a plan and couldn't devolve too much power (also his personal obsession with growing corn in Kazakhstan was a massive waste of resources). Even his de-Stalinisation was reeled in - so A Day In The Life was published, but Dr Zhivago wasn't. Add in his foreign policy disasters and he had to go, so the pub bore Brezhnev came in to replace him.

Brezhnev was unambitious and, aside from some economic tinkering in 65 (instigated by Kosygin), extremely averse to reform. So the USSR entered the big sleep until Gorbachev, with little to no significant attempts to reform society and strive for Communism. Khrushchev had set a date by which the USSR would build Communism. Brezhnev called time on this and the USSR settled into a state of 'really existing socialism'.

There are obviously loads of reasons for the collapse of the post-war consensus in parts of the West in the 1970s, but I've always felt like one factor was the shift in the USSR. This shift was from a reforming, post-Stalinist, outwardly assertive state to a crippled, stagnating and less confident nation. The former made the West keep on their toes, whereas the latter meant the ideological war had been won, Communism was clearly failing to improve the lives of the people of the USSR, and therefore parts of the West could more easily reject aspects of the post-war consensus.

[Zetetic]

I think it's extremely difficult to know what to make of the '60s economic reforms in the Soviet Union, not least because remarkably similar problems with a lack of capital investment emerged by the '70s and '80s across Eastern Europe in countries with massively diverse allocation mechanisms (both explicitly in Yugoslavia and in practice elsewhere), and all of them seemed extremely vulnerable to the debt trap laid in front of them.

(Then it's also hard to keep in mind how much macro economic planning was still in place in the West in the '70s, even if that's not down to per-factory resource allocation.)

[TrenterPercenter]

The formation of the NHS was consequent of the two world wars, surely that's not even a question?

No it isn't - what was in question was that millions needed to die in order for the NHS to be created.

They didn't.  The wars were a catalyst for the NHS but the idea that this was the only influence; that national health services can only come about from millions of dead is a pretty simplistic one.  You needed a Labour Government, and the nation voted for one in a shock result ousting Churchill; the Tories voted against the NHS bill 21 times and saw it as a step towards National Socialism (enter Bevan with his lower than vermin comment).

The people of the UK voted in a party that could do transformative change; that is the key thing here; fantasying about millions of dead and collapses of society in order to achieve leftist aims are for the likes of Galloway et al.

EDIT: I'll just make clear I'm not saying bgmnts is fantasying about people dying (before the usuals try and take us down that path) just that to overly focus on the War and not that a party at a time and place appealed to the masses isn't a good approach. There is quite obviously the Windrush generation to the consider in all of this also.

[AllisonSays]

Aye fair enough, I see what you're saying and I agree.

[Better Midlands]

I can't watch that show anymore simply because it treated people like JRM and Johnson like harmless buffoons and now the genie is out of the bottle.

Crazy to think that HIGNFY helped the rise of Johnson in the UK and in the US The Apprentice begat Trump.

[Theremin]

Thanks both for the USSR info, very interesting.

[ZoyzaSorris]

Another thread, another set of lengthy trenter rants of a dire aspect.

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

ed balls

[TrenterPercenter]

Another thread, another set of lengthy trenter rants of a dire aspect.

Ignore function is right there ZoyzaSorris 👍