Russian newspaper article

[Sharpe]

Also it was my understanding that Gordon Brown was the leader of the Labour party which is basically your socialist party. Now i understand if he is in the party that you are a member of but you disagree with his policies because that is something different but with my limited knowledge of British politics i cannot think of anything that Brown has done that is Thatcherite in nature.

Also specifically what do you dislike about Thatcher because i have always kinda liked what she did... but then again i believe in smaller government... lol

If you look up the miners strikes you'll see why I don't like Thatcher and why most working class people here despise her. Labour were at one point the party for the working class, their members and candidates were trade unionists on the whole. However, since they became "New Labour" they are basically indentical to the Conservatives. Back when they had people like Tony Benn and Michael Foot they were socialist but most of the socialists left Labour disillusioned.

 

[Dejavu]

Ok... i read up a bit on that particular event and here are the sequence of events as i see them.

Coal Union decided to strike. Not all workers wanted to strike. Union leaders used terror like tactics to make scabs afraid and unable to go to work. Government stepped in and made it so that picketers were not able to block scabs from going to work. Government reworked a law that took away benefits from people while they were striking. Many of the coal pits lost their customers due to public sentiment and ultimately it was a loss for all those who decided to strike.

So you are not at all angry at the Union for striking and causing the mess to start but you are angry at Thatcher for making the strikes harder to bear for the unionized worker. Yea you get no sympathy from me i despise unions and think that they always cause more harm than good for the employees that join them.

Perhaps if the coal fields were not nationalized in the first place there would have been no fear about the government arbitrarily closing down some... just a thought.

 

[Sharpe]

Ok... i read up a bit on that particular event and here are the sequence of events as i see them.

Coal Union decided to strike. Not all workers wanted to strike. Union leaders used terror like tactics to make scabs afraid and unable to go to work. Government stepped in and made it so that picketers were not able to block scabs from going to work. Government reworked a law that took away benefits from people while they were striking. Many of the coal pits lost their customers due to public sentiment and ultimately it was a loss for all those who decided to strike.

So you are not at all angry at the Union for striking and causing the mess to start but you are angry at Thatcher for making the strikes harder to bear for the unionized worker. Yea you get no sympathy from me i despise unions and think that they always cause more harm than good for the employees that join them.

Perhaps if the coal fields were not nationalized in the first place there would have been no fear about the government arbitrarily closing down some... just a thought.

Where did you get your info on the strikes from? The Daily Mail?

 

[Dejavu]

No... because i live in the US i got my info from this wonderful thing called the internet... sometimes the news is biased but what makes that different from any other news source... explain to me where my synopsis was incorrect please.

 

[Halifirien]

Heh. Fun graphic for people worried about ZOMG! socialism:

There is a serious discussion to be had here, and I think Jon Henke is having it: Socialism, like farenheit, comes in degrees. Sure, a government that nationalizes GM is "more socialist" than one that does not, even if it doesn't mean we're living "under socialism." But differences of degree shouldn't obscure differences of kind, and as Tim Fernholz says, "it's clear that putting the government in charge of private production is not the Obama administration's guiding philosophy."

 

[Dejavu]

Although i understand that we are just getting started down this path i think that this person needs to realize that we are a bit farther than he wants to admit due to the fact that he completely neglected to include the financial sector which are the largest wards of the state. Seeing as GM is the only (that i can think of off the top of my head) non financial company that has been socialized of course the chart is not going to look that bad.

My question is what is this chart going to look like if the financial sector (Fannie, Freddie, Goldman's, all the banks), GM and our upcoming universal health care was included on the chart. I don't feel like doing the math to estimate because it would be a pain in the ass to even try but i assume the pink section would be much more significant.

Also if i were asked i would say that with the control that the state is currently trying to assert over the individual as well we are heading more towards a form of fascism than socialism as i see the bailouts as Corporatism rather than nationalizing since companies are being cherry picked to be saved.