Leon Trotsky, Where is Britain Going? ch.4 The Fabian Theory of Socialism
I will not go so far as to say "the enemy of my enemy...", but he does a fine skewering.
Friday, 31 July 2009
Quote of the Day
"Fabianism, MacDonaldism and pacifism today play the same role in relation to the historical movement of the proletariat. They are the main prop of British imperialism and of the European, if not the world bourgeoisie. Workers must at all costs be shown these self-satisfied pedants, drivelling eclectics, sentimental careerists and liveried footmen of the bourgeoisie in their true colours. To show them up for what they are means to discredit them beyond repair. To discredit them means rendering a supreme service to historical progress. The day that the British proletariat cleanses itself of the spiritual abomination of Fabianism, mankind, especially in Europe, will increase its stature by a head."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"MacDonaldism"? I thought him supernaturally prescient for a second until I remembered old Ramsay. Still, it works equally well...
Any chance we can get an example of were Libertarian ideas have succeeded in a country...??
And
a) A country were all the middle/upper class people are still rich and wealthy doesn't work...
Furthermore, I'm curious...is it a child faults it's born to a f*cked up family? Poor chance at life? And because of that we don't have an obligation to help then?
Are you saying ALL the wealthy have achieved their wealth through utter goodness and the rest of us are just to f*cking stupid to get it right?
Wasn't Greenspan following pretty Libertarian attitudes with the economy? Or America from the 50's?
I'm actually waiting, seriously, for a Libertarian to argue a realistic point of view that isn't 'up in the air or make believe'...
P.S Didn't think TB would post my comment, so didn't go back to check on your comment re S Scarlett
Irene,
Libertarian "ideas" work(ed) in many countries. UK, US, Hong Kong.
The UK and now the US have moved further and further away from Libertarianism over the last 100 years or so.
Not sure why you demand the "a)" - as if being middle class and retaining your legally acquired property is somehow wrong or unliberal/libertarian.
Children: It is not the child's "fault". What makes you think Libertarians blame children for their parents? But then again there comes a time when the person becomes responsible for their actions and can make informed choices. A bad family cannot be used as an excuse for anything- that is unreasonable. The biggest destroyer of children is the State. Directly or indirectly through perverse incentives.
We do have an obligation to help children, but that is from within and ultimately answerable to ourselves and of our own free will. The State has NO right to demand we have an obligation under pain of imprisonment or theft of property. Despite what you may have been told, Libertarians are actually very concerned about their fellows - they belive that most people are charitable, reasonable. The Left and many who pretend to "care" tend to consider all people as selfish, irresponsible or herd animals to be tended and other nasty things. This is why the Left wishes to compel and why the Libertarians wish for consent.
Wealth. Certainly not. Many wealthy have inherited it, and so it is an accident of birth, just as not having wealth is. Many have earned it through hard work, good luck, timing etc. Welath that is illegally gained is against the Rule of Law and almost certainly violates property rights and so Libertarians will be against that form.
Greenspan can hardly be said to have followed LIbertarain monetary policy. He did not follow sound money in the long term.
The man has a point.
Give me examples of Liberterianism that has done good though? The glaring and first one I think of is 'Freemarketism' and we all know how 'free' that market was! To an elite few who became millionaires, run the World Bank and the IMF.
Tell me how the 'free market' has helped places like South America and Africa? Places colonia powers had no right to being there at the blimming first place.
You say the state is the biggest destroyer of children? How? And give me factual examples.
I pay tax and have done so all my life, my parents have probably paid much more the most. I've been in situations were I needed benefits that the state provide to help me back up. I'm sure you think it's my fault and all power to you but for me, the state has helped a helluva lot more than say an investment bank I should not mention that someone v close worked for who was fleeced when it started making a huge team redundant.
I'm not saying the concept of the state hasn't got a lot to answer for but so has private companies. I'm no fan of a nanny state and living right now, in a run down area with people having children, after children they can't feed, infact I'm more for cutting some services that I don't feel creates independence AT ALL.
But the issues I have is every tom, dick and harry, inc the posh boys and girls I went to school with, have this audacity to think that they are sorted and in a great position societal because of their doing. B*llshit. None of these follower have an OUNCE of individualism or have ever done anything hugely significant. They are just a lucky product of a stable background that breeds in you that you have to get an education, a nice house and good job to keep up with the joneses. How successful do you think they would be if they grew up were I live now huh? Hmmm....the mind bogles..
If you've come out through dire poverty, shi*t without needing the state than all the power to you but there are realistically not many like you and we have a reason for that. Humans are weak. They are sheep. They're not strapping individuals who cave out thier destinies. From the music they all listen to, to spoon fed information from the media they all buy into to the pathetic obsession with being 'celebs' or 'power' simply to show off to each other or to just wanting to have the nicest buggy.
So if you can give me great examples of this utopian world were humans are actually these amazing learners who have their own backbone and have been able to exist in a fair, civilised country/state, than I'm all ears. Trust. I couldn't care less about being right or wrong but I look at facts, research and patterns.
I also look at how happy the people in that community are..
Irene,
"Freemarketism" in the examples you cite could not be further from Libertarianism. You speak of Corporatism. Collusion between State and narrow private interests.
Your linking "colonial" + "free market" is irrational.
The State destroys children through the education system. The de facto monopoly creates worse than mediocre establishments that are full for the simple reason that the State will not open more establishments. Damned by low expectations. There are numerous examples of when talented Heads have turned around failed schools. In the real world outside our Socialism, such failing schools would have long shut or reformed. They go on for decades dragging a generation down with them.
Your mind boggles. Good schools exist in places that people write off as "deprived". It is low expectations. Good schools lift children out of their circumstances. Such has or I should say HAD been happening for some time.
AS for amazing learners, a century ago the libraries were full, filled with "poor working classes" educating themselves. "bettering" it was called then. Of course the Statists and Socialists hate that, for it makes them less easy to control. Better to make them sheep. You clearly have a very low opinion of people. Libertarians tend to have a high opinion of people. If you already decide people are sheep, how are the stars going to shine? Your view is entropic, and you ask how children are destroyed?
Post a Comment