Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What is you're view on the celebrations of Margaret thatcher's death? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Well the whole government is in the process of canonizing the late baroness! And the BBC was dancing on the grave of Hugo Chavez a few weeks ago! We have to accept this is not an ordinary woman, she did a lot of wrong to many people in this country. Sure it's not right to mock her if you sit of one of the boards of the industries she privatised, but I believe it's justified if you don't agree with her or have felt the consequences of her actions.
    You are basically stating that two wrongs made a right. She may have made a wrong decision which affected people in their lives, but people being disrespectful after her death doesn't improve the situation at all. Sure, she was a politician that was disliked or even hated by many (and don't get me wrong, I didn't agree with what she did) but she was still a human being and to express joy at her death is just plain wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Point taken about not giving you time to reply...

    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    In order to address your post I need to clarify that I view things from a Marxist perspectives, therefore I recognise the shortcomings of Capitalism, and State Capitalism included, which is very much what Labour was doing since 1945. Of course it's obvious most of the mines were unprofitable, and you're right about Wilson closing down more than Thatcher.
    So I ask, why isn't Wilson execrated by those people for accepting economic reality as Thatcher did?

    You acceopt that the mines were unprofitable? Why is it 'economic reality' that Wilson was closing them, but spite when Thatcher was?

    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Wilson was always a bit of a rascal though tbh, he drank pints on TV and then went back to drinking brandy off screen. But this is a problem with State Capitalism, in order to maintain the high levels of employment which are impossible under conventional Capitalism, profits must be reduced. Capitalism itself is a system which in its constant need to increase profits gradually reduces levels of employment, or increases working hours to do this. This is only really exacerbated under State Capitalism since it attempts to defy the laws of Capitalism (full employment yet still making a profit) I've just mentioned. As overproduction occors and consumption decreases naturally (since workers are only paid a fraction of the value of what they produce) we find ourselves in an economic crisis. This is where Keynesian economics comes in. It just doesn't work, I think you'll agree!
    I don't agree. This is just the same nonsense promulgated by the left who desire a Socialist Utopia, but it doesn't work. It has never worked, anywhere in the world. Capitalism works, as is demonstrated by all of the top world economies, compared to the likes of the USSR, Cuba, North Korea...

    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Even Jim Callaghan recognised this in his speech to the Labour Party conference in 1976. The whole issue goes back to 1945 and Attlee's Labour. They made the most progressive reforms of the 20th century, which naturally come out of revolutionary situations might I add, but they didn't go far enough. The people of Britain wanted Socialism. They had seen and experienced the superiority of the planned economy during the war. Full employment, registers of skilled workers, set production plans for each factory. It won us the war. This is why they voted for Labour in record numbers.
    And when the Socialism that they wanted failed, as it was always doomed to do, given it has failed every other time it has been tried, they wanted Thatcher.

    They had seen and experienced the ****tiness of the country during Labour of the 60s and 70s.

    High unemployment. The trades unions keeping the working class out of work. A new strike almost every month.

    Bodies lying unburied, rubbish on the streets, heating oil and food shortages due to transport workers striking.

    The country bankrupt (sound familiar?), Labour going cap in hand to the IMF...

    Constant power cuts. Beer and sandwiches for the union leaders at No.10 where they told elected politicians bought by union funds what they would allow them to do.

    Car industry that produced crap cars in between strikes.

    Dock workers deciding whether or not boats would be unloaded depending on the level of the bribe.

    King Arthur pontificating, and much more...

    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    But Attlee was ultimately a reformist, he thought you could have half a socialist revolution and a mixed economy, a mistake that Hugo Chavez has painfully learned. Attlee should have basically nationalised the lot, and planned the lot. If there ever was a time it was then. So after the wave of nationalisations occured Labour eventually saw that they needed to make economic cuts due to the unsustainable nature of this State Capitalist system, hence the closed mines, cut from NHS budget of £24 million I think, and devaluation of the pound.
    None of this is recognised by those who entirely lay the blame of the miners being out of work on Thatcher, and accuse anyone who even goes near the NHS budget as being akin to wanting to euthanise the infirm.

    Nobody cares that Labour privatised a lot of the NHS. Go to your local hospital. You will see the cleaning services contracted out to ISS and the pharmacy run by Lloyds...

    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Anyway back to Thatcher, what I dislike the most is that she completely savaged a key part of the British economy, industry. They weren't even worth privatising according to her. By focusing on the service industry she weakened the overall British economy, and we are feeling the repercussions now. Also she hated the working class in and of itself, describing them as the enemy within etc.
    Back to Wilson, as in my other post. Yet you hold him up as some sort of rogueish hero. The irony...

    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    So what would I have done had I been in Thatcher's situation? Taking into account my own perspective as stated above I don't really think I could answer that question in a way that would satisfy you. The problem has it's roots way before Thatcher, before the 1970's Labour.
    Taking into account your flawed perspective, I don't think you could answer that at all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The celebrations of her death have made me feel a bit uncomfortable. Surely the time to celebrate was when she stopped being PM? She died alone in a hotel room, as an old lady with dementia, who hadn't had any involvement in UK politics for quite some time. Her legacy still exists, which I can understand some people being angry about, but her death doesn't change anything about it, so I don't understand why it is being celebrated so much now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlueSheep32)
    The celebrations of her death have made me feel a bit uncomfortable. Surely the time to celebrate was when she stopped being PM? She died alone in a hotel room, as an old lady with dementia, who hadn't had any involvement in UK politics for quite some time. Her legacy still exists, which I can understand some people being angry about, but her death doesn't change anything about it, so I don't understand why it is being celebrated so much now.
    Totally agree.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    We're not talking about Diane Abbot. Margaret Thatcher is not Diane Abbot's mum. Diane Abbot has not publicly stated that she won't return from abroad for the time being in response to her mother's death.
    We are talking about Diane Abbot. I just introduced her to the topic, see.

    In the same way, we were not talking about Carol Thatcher being a racist, until you introduced it to the topic.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Your Your Your Your Your Your Your

    Sorry but the title of this thread is painful to read and nobody had pointed this out.

    With regards to the thread - anyone celebrating the death of a fellow human being in most cases is a moron. I guess there is the grey area of celebrating the death of a someone who commits mass murder / genocide - if Hitler was still alive I'd find it difficult not to celebrate his death - but celebrating the death of a right-wing politician, however misguided you think they are, in my eyes is just wrong.

    On the other hand however, I wasn't alive at the time and a lot of people had their lives ruined by Thatcher (I think, I mean I'm not all that well versed in Thatcher politics tbh). But if you had your livelihood stripped away then you might be very very pissed off and celebrating the death of the person who did it is possibly understandable.

    Lastly, the whole celebration thing is probably just the media trying to capitalise (pun intended) on Thatcher's death. It's probably not as big as they're making it out to be. And I reckon as other people have said, most of the celebrators are just doing it to be fashionable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpottedZebra)
    I'd say that no matter what they are like, they don't deserve that. Imagine if you were trying to grieve whilst the nation mocked your dead relative: it's not right.
    You don't know anything about them, therefore you don't know what they do or don't deserve.

    Margaret Thatcher spent the last leg of her frail, ill life in the Ritz alone, while her son holidayed in Barbados and her daughter continued her life separately abroad. She also spent her last two Christmases with her carer. You may find Russel Brand's recent article interesting, where he talks about seeing Thatcher in a park as she emerges from a car to water some flowers - she would come to this park to do this once every month without any friends or family by her side. I don't know if that says more about her children, or the kind of woman she was.

    This is what happens when you celebrate individualism and claim there is no such thing as 'society'. I am not usually a fan of Russell Brand but his recent column spoke a lot of sense in which he stated:

    'The blunt, pathetic reality today is that a little old lady has died, who in the winter of her life had to water roses alone under police supervision. If you behave like there's no such thing as society, in the end there isn't.'
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Point taken about not giving you time to reply...



    So I ask, why isn't Wilson execrated by those people for accepting economic reality as Thatcher did?
    A variety of factors, favourable TV coverage, the fact he was generally more likeable than Thatcher, and he didn't outright hate working class people like Thatcher did. But he popularity decreased over the years. Like I said, British people wanted Socialism. I also should define what Socialism is, since you don't seem to know. True Socialism is not Keynesian economics and high government spending, that's State Capitalism. Socialism is a system where production for profit is removed entirely, and production is based on social need and desire. With commodities being distributed on the basis of social need and ability. And yes money would still exist, and no, not everyone would get the same amount since people have different needs and abilities. The closest we got to this was WW2 where the Conservative Churchill, a man who hated Socialism, recognised the benefits and need of a Socialist planned economy. And so Britain's economy was heavily planned, and you know what, it paid off!

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    You acceopt that the mines were unprofitable? Why is it 'economic reality' that Wilson was closing them, but spite when Thatcher was?
    At what point didn't I acknowledge that? It's a shortcoming of Capitalism and State Capitalism too, I did say that! What I don't like is her attitude to the working class and contempt for industry in general.



    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I don't agree. This is just the same nonsense promulgated by the left who desire a Socialist Utopia, but it doesn't work. It has never worked, anywhere in the world. Capitalism works, as is demonstrated by all of the top world economies, compared to the likes of the USSR, Cuba, North Korea...
    Well I've already explained that it worked quite well in Britain during WW2, which is why the people of Britain voted Labour in since they saw the full employment, the collective spirit, the clear economic benefit, and wanted to continue it. Also it worked in the Paris Commune of 1871 which was the first example of a worker's state. Bakers began to give bread out for free after they got what they needed for the day, and a whole host of previously unheard of advancements were made in the walls of a single city. Unfortunately it was brutally crushed by German and French armies, who interestingly had been fighting each other just before the Commune. Also I don't think you can deny the huge economic growth of the USSR from it's planned economy, despite its bureaucratic and undemocratic nature. The USSR grew 52 times in the space of around 60 years, while the USA grew 6 times, and Britain struggled to reach twice times growth. I would also like to stress that the USSR was originally a true worker's state, but degenerated due to various factors such as shortages in the economy, and the 14 sovereign nations that tried to immediately destroy it. Also Cuba and North Korea are not Socialist, or even Communist, they are Stalinist dictatorships, there is a big difference. And Capitalism works you say? That's not what I'm seeing at the moment! Mass unemployment all over Europe, something like 55% of youth unemployed in Spain, economic crises everywhere, auesterity, a growing divide between rich and poor. I don't think this system works at all.



    (Original post by marcusfox)
    And when the Socialism that they wanted failed, as it was always doomed to do, given it has failed every other time it has been tried, they wanted Thatcher.
    First of all like I've said it wasn't Socialism, it was State Capitalism, which is doomed to fail, like Capitalism itself. They wanted Thatcher did they? I think it's quote obvious the main reasons why Thatcher one was the discontent with the Labour Party. Thatcher never really made any clear political stances in 1979, she was even pro-Europe then!


    (Original post by marcusfox)
    They had seen and experienced the ****tiness of the country during Labour of the 60s and 70s.

    High unemployment. The trades unions keeping the working class out of work. A new strike almost every month.

    Bodies lying unburied, rubbish on the streets, heating oil and food shortages due to transport workers striking.

    The country bankrupt (sound familiar?), Labour going cap in hand to the IMF...

    Constant power cuts. Beer and sandwiches for the union leaders at No.10 where they told elected politicians bought by union funds what they would allow them to do.

    Car industry that produced crap cars in between strikes.

    Dock workers deciding whether or not boats would be unloaded depending on the level of the bribe.

    King Arthur pontificating, and much more...
    How a Trade Union makes people unemployed is beyond me. They fight for the rights of workers! And strikes are one of the methods of doing that. And all the problems you've mentioned are problems of the State Capitalism system that is ultimately unsustainable.




    (Original post by marcusfox)
    None of this is recognised by those who entirely lay the blame of the miners being out of work on Thatcher, and accuse anyone who even goes near the NHS budget as being akin to wanting to euthanise the infirm.

    Nobody cares that Labour privatised a lot of the NHS. Go to your local hospital. You will see the cleaning services contracted out to ISS and the pharmacy run by Lloyds...
    Is this New Labour we're talking about? Whether it is or it isn't we also have to understand that the NHS and Welfare State are only temporary in nature and are unsustainable under Capitalism. In fact they are a contradition to Capitalism.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Back to Wilson, as in my other post. Yet you hold him up as some sort of rogueish hero. The irony...
    Erm no I don't, I think you're confusing me with someone else. Show me where I talk of Wilson as a hero.


    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Taking into account your flawed perspective, I don't think you could answer that at all.
    Well since I'm a Marxist it's a pretty stupid question in the first place And you're the one with the flawed perspectives, you clearly can't see the long term damage that Thatcher's economic policies have had. Capitalism leads to it's own destruction eventually, Thatcher sped up that process dramatically.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpottedZebra)
    You are basically stating that two wrongs made a right. She may have made a wrong decision which affected people in their lives, but people being disrespectful after her death doesn't improve the situation at all. Sure, she was a politician that was disliked or even hated by many (and don't get me wrong, I didn't agree with what she did) but she was still a human being and to express joy at her death is just plain wrong.
    "Wrong decision" is quite a euphemism. Of course it doesn't improve the situation, I'm saying people should have the right to be happy about her death and not be condemned for it! It's not as simple as "plain wrong".
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    We are talking about Diane Abbot. I just introduced her to the topic, see.

    In the same way, we were not talking about Carol Thatcher being a racist, until you introduced it to the topic.
    Well Spotted Zebra said her kids are trying to grieve. I was just highlighting that it doesn't appear like they are grieving, since they won't even come back to Britain. I also mentioned that they seem to be quite nasty pieces of work, which I accept, was probably unnecessary.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's difficult to hate someone so much over a job. For people who were forced to move away from a town or village they'd never left since the day they were born, I can understand strong feelings. It's still in bad taste, but it has some justification. Anyone under the age of 40 doing this is trying to make a point about how fashionable they are and I think that is a despicable reason to spit on a grandmother's grave.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They're pathetic. Her death doesn't affect them, she has been out of power for over 20 years. So celebrating it is very immature. I wonder how they would feel if someone celebrated when their mother or grandmother died.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    A variety of factors, favourable TV coverage, the fact he was generally more likeable than Thatcher, and he didn't outright hate working class people like Thatcher did. But he popularity decreased over the years. Like I said, British people wanted Socialism. I also should define what Socialism is, since you don't seem to know. True Socialism is not Keynesian economics and high government spending, that's State Capitalism. Socialism is a system where production for profit is removed entirely, and production is based on social need and desire. With commodities being distributed on the basis of social need and ability. And yes money would still exist, and no, not everyone would get the same amount since people have different needs and abilities. The closest we got to this was WW2 where the Conservative Churchill, a man who hated Socialism, recognised the benefits and need of a Socialist planned economy. And so Britain's economy was heavily planned, and you know what, it paid off!
    You should tell that to those that lived in the 60s and 70s then... Old labour were socialist to the core. You cannot escape from the fact that Socialism, true or not, has never worked, anywhere in the world.

    Look at the state that the last socialist government we had left us in. Liam Byrne summed it up nicely. "Sorry, no money left." Nail on head.

    Contrast with how even Blair commented on how wealthy the Tories had left the economy.

    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    At what point didn't I acknowledge that? It's a shortcoming of Capitalism and State Capitalism too, I did say that! What I don't like is her attitude to the working class and contempt for industry in general.
    So, it IS the case in your view that is was necessary 'economic reality' when Wilson was closing the industries and putting the miners out of jobs, but spite when Thatcher was doing the same?

    Why the cognitive dissonance?

    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Well I've already explained that it worked quite well in Britain during WW2, which is why the people of Britain voted Labour in since they saw the full employment, the collective spirit, the clear economic benefit, and wanted to continue it. Also it worked in the Paris Commune of 1871 which was the first example of a worker's state. Bakers began to give bread out for free after they got what they needed for the day, and a whole host of previously unheard of advancements were made in the walls of a single city. Unfortunately it was brutally crushed by German and French armies, who interestingly had been fighting each other just before the Commune. Also I don't think you can deny the huge economic growth of the USSR from it's planned economy, despite its bureaucratic and undemocratic nature. The USSR grew 52 times in the space of around 60 years, while the USA grew 6 times, and Britain struggled to reach twice times growth. I would also like to stress that the USSR was originally a true worker's state, but degenerated due to various factors such as shortages in the economy, and the 14 sovereign nations that tried to immediately destroy it. Also Cuba and North Korea are not Socialist, or even Communist, they are Stalinist dictatorships, there is a big difference. And Capitalism works you say? That's not what I'm seeing at the moment! Mass unemployment all over Europe, something like 55% of youth unemployed in Spain, economic crises everywhere, auesterity, a growing divide between rich and poor. I don't think this system works at all.
    Capitalism may not be perfect, but it works.

    If only those problems that we have with capitalism were the least of the worries those who lived under socialist regimes faced.

    Forget unemployment. Try starvation.

    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    First of all like I've said it wasn't Socialism, it was State Capitalism, which is doomed to fail, like Capitalism itself. They wanted Thatcher did they? I think it's quote obvious the main reasons why Thatcher one was the discontent with the Labour Party. Thatcher never really made any clear political stances in 1979, she was even pro-Europe then!
    They did want Thatcher. proof being, they voted her in, time and time and time again.

    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    How a Trade Union makes people unemployed is beyond me. They fight for the rights of workers! And strikes are one of the methods of doing that. And all the problems you've mentioned are problems of the State Capitalism system that is ultimately unsustainable.
    I never said that a trades union made people unemployed. I said they were keeping people out of work. It really is very simple.

    Firstly, a trades union leader wants to call a strike, but he doesn't have the support of all of the workers (or in Scargill's case, even a majority)

    He calls those who do want to strike, out on picket, and these prevent those who want to keep on working from doing so.

    Those who want to work are being prevented from doing so.

    All of those problems I mentioned were the fault of the trades unions.

    The trades unions decided that they could run the country at their whim, and to hell with the politicians. If the unions had not been controlled, we would now be like the eastern bloc states, requiring handouts to prop up the regime.

    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Is this New Labour we're talking about? Whether it is or it isn't we also have to understand that the NHS and Welfare State are only temporary in nature and are unsustainable under Capitalism. In fact they are a contradition to Capitalism.
    So what would you have done with it that would not attract criticism akin to putting the poor in workhouses or euthanising the sick?

    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Erm no I don't, I think you're confusing me with someone else. Show me where I talk of Wilson as a hero.
    The fact that in your first post, you completely fail to mention Wilson's contribution to the mining industry and go on to spout vitrol at Thatcher for devastating Welsh mining communities.

    The fact that you cannot bring yourself to use any phrase stronger than 'a rascal' to criticise Wilson with, yet you are happy to dance on the grave of Thatcher for doing precisely the same thing.

    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Well since I'm a Marxist it's a pretty stupid question in the first place And you're the one with the flawed perspectives, you clearly can't see the long term damage that Thatcher's economic policies have had. Capitalism leads to it's own destruction eventually, Thatcher sped up that process dramatically.
    "How do you tell [when someone is] a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell [when someone is] an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    I wish everyone would shut up about these people not knowing about her policies. How do you know they don't? People are entitled to believe what they want and act in whatever way they see fit. What law is being broken? We can throw ourselves into the streets in mourning, but no one can be happy for the death of an enemy of the working classes! Fair enough you don't see it that way, but many do. And many have felt and lived through the Thatcher years. The pain and the suffering of the older generations have been passed on to the younger generations. The hatred for Thatcher is part of working class historical memory. Tell a young man, who has grown up in a devastation and poverty stricken but once thriving mining community in South Wales that he shouldn't hate Thatcher and everything that she did. Police violence, mass demonisation through the media, starvation brought on through legislation, just some of the weapons used by Thatcher to break the unions and the working class. I don't see any reason for such a man to have any form of respect for her.

    And that's not to mention the vile ideology that has permeated through every section of British society to this day, so much so that it has had affected human consciousness. Thatcherism. Greed, selfishness, avarice, masquerading as "ambition". She represented Capitalism in the raw, unrestrained and merciless. We were told to get rich at the expense of others, that there was no such thing as a society, only individuals. It is exactly this mentality why we are in such a grave economic crisis we are in today. Why the current government spends more and more on the privileges for the rich and for MPs, yet denies the necessities for survival to the poor. She also managed to bend one of the true working class institutions of Britain, the Labour Party, into the right wing mess it is today.

    There is so much more to say too. So I'll answer OP's question by saying I drank to her death on Tuesday, and I will be doing so again tonight, after a long discussion with some friends over her policies and impact on Britain. However the battle is not yet over. Thatcherism is still alive and thriving in Britain, and I won't truly celebrated until we are completely rid of it.

    I hate her, I hate everything that she did and stood for. Love her if you want, but please don't tell me not to hate her.
    But it's the truth, the majority don't know much about her. Now let's make some corrections and observations.

    Firstly, of course you may go into the streets and celebrate, noone is suggesting you shouldn't be allowed to, what we are lamenting is the utter lack of respect, class, dignity, taste and so on it represents. Next, hatred of Thatcher is by no means a part of working class identity. It's a part of some regional identities, I know plenty of people who were working class under Thatcher that have good things to say about her. Those that weren't in the industries holding the nation to ransom tend to have a slightly more balanced appraoch to things. They tended to not be in support of roling blackouts and 3 days weeks at the expense of the tax payer, madness eh? Do not conflate the working class to your cause, it's simply not true.

    Yes, damn her! Damn her for daring to say that people should stand on their own two feet! Damn her for telling them they could be better and do more! Damn her to hell for taking a failing economy and making it into one that worked, that 30 years down the line, through no fault of her own, had it's own set of issues. It's like you forget the economic model we were running under before Thatcher was failing.

    The fact that you feel this hatred, that you feel the need to celebrate the death of a Lady removed from politics by 30 years, just showcases a huge part of what is wrong with the mentality of people of your political leanings. As much as you accuse others of Class-Warfare, you are the biggest peddlers of hate, divide, 'them and us' thinking that there are.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Well Spotted Zebra said her kids are trying to grieve. I was just highlighting that it doesn't appear like they are grieving, since they won't even come back to Britain. I also mentioned that they seem to be quite nasty pieces of work, which I accept, was probably unnecessary.
    Ok, well I won't press you on the point.

    The thing is, deep down, if all of the aspects, utterances and actions of the lives of any single person is put in the spotlight, I'm certain you could find any number of incidents that will make them out to be 'nasty pieces of work' when taken in isolation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What I don't understand the most about it is how they are celebrating a death which has no effect on them. Thatcher had no power when she died so her death made no difference to their lives. The only effect Thatcher's death had was on family and friends. To celebrate an event which only causes grief is beyond me. Now I consider myself left-wing and I wasn't around to feel the impact of Thatcher's policies but from what I can gather from somewhat reliable research, she was not evil. She wanted a strong Britain. I may not agree with all of her policies but I still think some of what she did which she has been slated for was simply necessary. She did not persecute anybody and her death does not change the lives of the people of Britain, and so celebration of her death is an act of pure ignorant hatred.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    You should tell that to those that lived in the 60s and 70s then... Old labour were socialist to the core. You cannot escape from the fact that Socialism, true or not, has never worked, anywhere in the world.
    You're completely ignoring my definitions of Socialism and State Capitalism. Labour has never been truly Socialist! And a Socialist planned economy worked during WW2! Can you not recognise that? Tell me why I'm wrong or you accept my position by default.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Look at the state that the last socialist government we had left us in. Liam Byrne summed it up nicely. "Sorry, no money left." Nail on head.


    Contrast with how even Blair commented on how wealthy the Tories had left the economy.

    Again, you've ignored my definition. High government spending is not Socialism!



    (Original post by marcusfox)
    So, it IS the case in your view that is was necessary 'economic reality' when Wilson was closing the industries and putting the miners out of jobs, but spite when Thatcher was doing the same?

    Why the cognitive dissonance?
    I've explained briefly how Capitalism inevitably leads to this situation. Ultimately the Capitalist economic reality is that the closures do need to happen, that doesn't mean I desire it! This is precisely why this system needs to be overthrown. Call this "cognitive dissonance" if you will. Also If we judge Thatcher and Wilson solely on their policy towards the miners then they are more or less the same, except Wilson never waged a brutal war against them like Thatcher did, did he? Also I have many more reasons to hate Thatcher which I won't bother going into atm since they are beside the point.


    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Capitalism may not be perfect, but it works.

    If only those problems that we have with capitalism were the least of the worries those who lived under socialist regimes faced.

    Forget unemployment. Try starvation.
    No it doesn't work. It works perfectly for the tiny minority of the rich. The rest of us are powerless to stop the gradual destruction of all the progressive reforms we've had over the past 70 years. And for what? To maintain the profits of the Capitalists. And if you're referring to the starvation in Russia, I think it's incredibly ignorant to simply say "oh Socialism doesn't work". You're completely ignoring the material conditions and context of the starvation. Like I said earlier, had 14 (an unprecedented amount) of nations not immediately tried to wipe out Russia, the situation may have been a little better. Plus there are many more reasons why it degenerated into what it did.




    (Original post by marcusfox)
    They did want Thatcher. proof being, they voted her in, time and time and time again.
    1979, Labour was weak, 1983 Falklands factor, 1987 Labour in the process of tearing out its own heart in the name of modernising, most working people saw no point in voting Labour. The pits were closed, the unions and miners were smashed, all hope was lost.




    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I never said that a trades union made people unemployed. I said they were keeping people out of work. It really is very simple.

    Firstly, a trades union leader wants to call a strike, but he doesn't have the support of all of the workers (or in Scargill's case, even a majority)

    He calls those who do want to strike, out on picket, and these prevent those who want to keep on working from doing so.

    Those who want to work are being prevented from doing so.

    All of those problems I mentioned were the fault of the trades unions.

    The trades unions decided that they could run the country at their whim, and to hell with the politicians. If the unions had not been controlled, we would now be like the eastern bloc states, requiring handouts to prop up the regime.
    It's funny that the counter demonstrations by miners who wanted to work did nothing to stop their pit closures. The unions were fighting for the survival of the industries they represented. Scargill and the leadership were rotten, but the unions should have been supported by Labour. But they were abandoned and left for dead. And that Union run dystopia you described makes no sense to me at all!


    (Original post by marcusfox)
    So what would you have done with it that would not attract criticism akin to putting the poor in workhouses or euthanising the sick?
    I would love to see the NHS grow and be expanded. But it isn't going to happen under Capitalism, infact the exact opposite is going to happen. Under Capitalism the NHS and the Welfare State cannot exist, because I recognise that asking me what I would have done is pointless. I would push for a Socialist revolution, the abolition of Capitalism, and a rationally planned economy free from profit and anarchic markets where we can provide free healthcare for all.





    (Original post by marcusfox)
    The fact that in your first post, you completely fail to mention Wilson's contribution to the mining industry and go on to spout vitrol at Thatcher for devastating Welsh mining communities.

    The fact that you cannot bring yourself to use any phrase stronger than 'a rascal' to criticise Wilson with, yet you are happy to dance on the grave of Thatcher for doing precisely the same thing.
    Right, I hate Thatcher for a variety of reasons, her treatment of the mining industry was one of them. I recognise that Wilson did the same, but I don't hate him since Thatcher did much much more! And for christ sake my first post was explaining why people should have the right to party over Thatcher's death! You really want me to actively be thinking about past historical figures who may have done one or two things similar to Thatcher? What a stupid suggestion. So by not mentioning Wilson in my first post I have somehow made him a hero!



    (Original post by marcusfox)
    "How do you tell [when someone is] a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell [when someone is] an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
    You should work on your basic understanding of Socialism and Capitalism before coming out with crap like that.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't particularly agree with her politically, but to celebrate her death, in my opinion, is terrible and really says something worrying about us as a society.

    It's worse that it's mostly people my age posting stupid things on fb like 'ding dong the witch is dead' when they know next to nothing about her political policies!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    So celebration at the demise of enemies should be based on whether or not there is a tangible benefit or not? And also it's not just "spite". People are genuinely happy about this, and I see no reason to criticise them for that.
    What's there to be happy about though? An old woman with dementia has died? Who gains from it? Please tell me, what is there to celebrate?

    I live in Derry and saw plenty of the 'celebrations' - most of the people taking part were people under 20 and not even alive when Thatcher was in power. Any personal grievance they had was probably inherited from their parents.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    But it's the truth, the majority don't know much about her. Now let's make some corrections and observations.

    Firstly, of course you may go into the streets and celebrate, noone is suggesting you shouldn't be allowed to, what we are lamenting is the utter lack of respect, class, dignity, taste and so on it represents. Next, hatred of Thatcher is by no means a part of working class identity. It's a part of some regional identities, I know plenty of people who were working class under Thatcher that have good things to say about her. Those that weren't in the industries holding the nation to ransom tend to have a slightly more balanced appraoch to things. They tended to not be in support of roling blackouts and 3 days weeks at the expense of the tax payer, madness eh? Do not conflate the working class to your cause, it's simply not true.

    Yes, damn her! Damn her for daring to say that people should stand on their own two feet! Damn her for telling them they could be better and do more! Damn her to hell for taking a failing economy and making it into one that worked, that 30 years down the line, through no fault of her own, had it's own set of issues. It's like you forget the economic model we were running under before Thatcher was failing.

    The fact that you feel this hatred, that you feel the need to celebrate the death of a Lady removed from politics by 30 years, just showcases a huge part of what is wrong with the mentality of people of your political leanings. As much as you accuse others of Class-Warfare, you are the biggest peddlers of hate, divide, 'them and us' thinking that there are.
    I've addressed some of these points in earlier posts so have a look at them if you can. But I mean what is a respectful and dignified celebration of someone's death. What are these people doing wrong? They're not actively harming people or forcing others to join them, they're just gathering round and singing songs about Thatcher!

    Her economic policies had the overall effect of weakening the British economy. We have a shortage of industry now, and financial re-regulation has left our economies in the hands of unstable market forces. Also the economy really is not working atm, austerity is predicted for the next years or so. These are ultimately problems with Capitalism which she exacerbated. I've also acknowledged earlier that Keynesian economics and state capitalism don't work, but the problem has it's roots in Attlee's post world war 2 economy, not Labour's 1970's high spending. It's in an earlier post.

    Is it really wrong to hate a woman to did so much harm to such large sections of society. Is it wrong to hate an ideology of greed and exploitation like you would hate racism, sexism, nazism, or zionism? As a Marxist I believe the main conflicts in society are class conflicts, Thatcher was a member of the ruling class and embodied all its ideals. I am an individual with no power or authority, Thatcher had exactly these things and she used them against the working class. So if I'm called a "peddler of hate" for despising this then so be it.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.