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

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.

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.

I never said anyone would gain anything...
People can be happy about it though! That's what all you lot seem to be opposed to, people's emotions!

And yeah you're right, they weren't alive then, they can't possibly know what happened!

I don't think the blinkered and bigoted left want to get the Maggie thing cluttered up with facts. They're far too dim and eternally entrenched in the land of make believe, and their fantasies about 'wicked witches' (how ironic) to understand that their fairy land doesn't exist and never did, and neither does a Socialist Utopia anywhere in the world.

It all comes down to the fact that they aren't man enough to accept that they were totally out thought and out fought by a woman, who reclaimed the country from mob rule by the trades union movement.

If they enjoy living on hatred and bile, that is their problem. It is a shame that their bigotry blinds them to the truth that it was the likes of them and their ilk that so nearly ruined the country, and did badly damage our industries and cause massive unemployment.

What a good job THE COUNTRY elected someone - THREE TIMES - who had the guts to stand up to them...

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.

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!



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.





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.





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!




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.






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.



Erm no I don't, I think you're confusing me with someone else. Show me where I talk of Wilson as a hero.




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.

Snip...

You should work on your basic understanding of Socialism and Capitalism before coming out with crap like that.

Elaborate? In which country? In what sense was it socialist? In what sense did it 'work'?

It is true though.

I could try and educate you, but it would make no difference.

Every criticism of points you have raised, you only come back and comment on minor points or irrelevancies... your politcal views make it impossible for you to criticise Wilson even though he closed MORE of the mines than Thatcher did... you highlighted Thatcher devastated Welsh mining communities, but failed to mention Wilson's contribution... and much more.

And an answer to the problems encountered under socialism consisting of 'well, that wasn't true socialism' is meaningless.

Socialists just like you have this ideal of a utopian society where everyone is equal, everyone has a job, everyone is prosperous... except the reality is very much different. The proof? Everywhere socialism has existed, ever.

Capitalism is not a perfect system it's just that all the other are worse. The modern moaning left wingers know all that's wrong with the world but haven't the first clue what to do about it. Or if they do have, they're scared to tell us lest we all wet ourselves laughing.

Just like Milband and Labour, utterly pointless, all ideas now bankrupt, rubbish at socialism and even more rubbish at capitalism. At least those protesters at St Pauls were honest, putting up 'solutions tents' because they haven't got any. Of course, it makes them a laughing stock and, as ever, as much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot.

Maybe all those that rail against capitalism do so because they're crap at it and they know it. A bunch of quitters that want the rules changed for them, Labour style, where it's everyone else's fault so no one is allowed to come last.

Well they can sod off - the real losers are those poor souls born to lose, starving or with poor health or disabilities, now that's something to feel sorry for and do something about, or go to hell for not trying.

The rest with two arms and two legs, faculties and a brain can go on and get on with it because you were born lucky, by comparison, and, under a free market capitalist system, if you're wasting it it's your own fault and no one else's.

That's why it works and that's why it's great and the alternative, make no mistake, is North Korea, worse than even ancient Rome.

If ever a face was made for punching look no further than that twenty nine year old just made great leader. That could have been us that could, if you lot had your way, Arthur Scargill's son dropping his thumb at the arena.

That's why we have the ballot box, a peaceful revolution every five years, at least under our system and not PR. But then, if you don't like democracy the chances are it's because you're wrong.

I wish you wouldn't group the left-wing into one. It's hugely diverse. People who are left-wing are individuals and there are many who did not celebrate Thatcher's death.

As for saying a Socialist Utopia doesn't exist, I would argue that no ideal political system exists. And there are instances today of successful, small-scale communism. There are flaws and advantages to each system, and shouldn't our aim be to try and progress in what we believe to be the right direction?

Left-wing politics is hugely diverse, and to imply that everybody who would class themselves within that area to be stupid is unfair and ignorant in itself.

Read my earlier post, in Britain, it was socialist because one of the primary elements of a socialist society is a planned economy. And it worked because we got through the war.

I liked her attitude of encouraging people to be less reliant on the state and aspiring to make money and be successful. I'm not a greedy person, but I would like to earn a good living when I'm older, and I know this sounds cheesy, but I want to give my Mum and Dad all the things they can't afford currently, because right now they spend the money on me instead

Oh yes, thumb me down because I'm from the working class, and we should be kept at bay in our sink schools and abhorrent council estates.

I have to go atm, I'll respond properly later.

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.

And I suppose you'd have no issue if people were to sing mocking songs about your mother the day she died?

You say this, but again, look at the economy of Britain in the 70's. Her policies had the effect of saving the economy, can you with a straight face make the claim that we could have gone on as it was? You say Austerity like it's a bad thing, yes there are issues with the way the economy is regulated, the way things work at the moment. But for the most part it does work, these are kinks in the system and flaws to be removed, it is not indicative of a systematic failure as you believe. Beyond a soundbite, the whole 'Capatalism is Crisis' nonsense is meaningless. Your 'acknowledgment' that systems don't work, is meaningless also I'm afraid.

Hate the ideology if you must, hate the woman Thatcher was, if you must, but why celebrate her death when she's had nought to do with anything for 30 years? I'm not going to celebrate when Arthur Scargill dies, hell, I don't even hate the man. I hate some of the things he did, but I don't hate the man, and he's still involved in politics to this day. This is the problem with your side of the spectrum, the hate, the divide. And of course, you have the monopoly on it, because nothing your lot have ever done has ever really changed anything. It's nice to sit on an ideological high horse, and I allow it, you sit up there. But what irks me is this need for you to peddle such divisie, hateful rhetoric. Why do you have to hate? Why can you not simply disagree? I don't hate Socialism, I disagree with it. I don't the working class, they simply exist. And yet you hate the Middle and Upper class. I don't hate you, though no doubt you view me as some morally bankrupt, woefully ignorant individual because I support the system over your ideals.

While your at it, you could always respond to my original question.

"So, let me ask you what would you have done, considering these industries were expensive failures? How is it the government's fault when a national industry costs more to run than it brings in, and it costs more to dig coal out of Wales (or anywhere else in the UK) than import from Australia?"



Is not an adequate answer.

I want to know what you would have done in Thatcher's place that would have satisfied all those Welsh/northern communists/socialists/marxists, whatever you want to call yourselves, and still keep the country ticking along nicely.

I'm also not sure you could answer that question in a way that would satisfy me, since a PLAUSIBLE scenario is required, but at least it would be entertaining to watch you try, instead of simply ducking the question.

Anyone else want to have a bash?

It is true though.

I could try and educate you, but it would make no difference.

Every criticism of points you have raised, you only come back and comment on minor points or irrelevancies... your politcal views make it impossible for you to criticise Wilson even though he closed MORE of the mines than Thatcher did... you highlighted Thatcher devastated Welsh mining communities, but failed to mention Wilson's contribution... and much more.

Actually they make it entirely possible for me to criticise Wilson, which I have done. But Thatcher on the whole is far worse of a character than Wilson was.

And an answer to the problems encountered under socialism consisting of 'well, that wasn't true socialism' is meaningless.

Well it is since what I'm saying is that what you are calling Socialism isn't Socialism, it's still Capitalism! But state Capitalism, so to say that Socialism doesn't work because Labour made a mess of the economy in the 70s doesn't make sense.

Socialists just like you have this ideal of a utopian society where everyone is equal, everyone has a job, everyone is prosperous... except the reality is very much different. The proof? Everywhere socialism has existed, ever.

Actually Marx never said that everyone would be equal. In fact he explicitly explained that when you base a system purely on ability and need, there will be differences in what people receive. It's perfectly possible for everyone to have a job, if we remove the profit element from production this, and so much more is achievable, because the inherent contradictions of Capitalism are removed! And I've said this time and time again, we have not yet seen true Socialism in the world! Also you're completely ignoring the historical and material context of whatever nation you're referring to. As if they just popped up out of nowhere, tried "Socialism" out and it failed!

Capitalism is not a perfect system it's just that all the other are worse. The modern moaning left wingers know all that's wrong with the world but haven't the first clue what to do about it. Or if they do have, they're scared to tell us lest we all wet ourselves laughing.

The state of left wing politics in the world is something else entirely, but trust me, it's existed for centuries and is far from dead. We're seeing a re-resurgence of it as we speak.

Just like Milband and Labour, utterly pointless, all ideas now bankrupt, rubbish at socialism and even more rubbish at capitalism. At least those protesters at St Pauls were honest, putting up 'solutions tents' because they haven't got any. Of course, it makes them a laughing stock and, as ever, as much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot.

Miliband and Labour are rubbish because of your darling Thatcher's influence on them! It's an insult to true left ideas to describe them as Socialists! The occupy movement had good intentions, but ultimately no goal, no theory, and therefore achieved nothing. But it's promising to see that people are willing to take a stand against the inequalities of the Capitalist system.

Maybe all those that rail against capitalism do so because they're crap at it and they know it. A bunch of quitters that want the rules changed for them, Labour style, where it's everyone else's fault so no one is allowed to come last.

Don't make me laugh! You and the Capitalist class you defend are the ones that break the rules! You champion free market economics, but when the banks go bust you come running cap in hand to the state! You enforce taxation against the poorest, yet allow legal loopholes to continue to operate allowing billions of pounds in revenue to be lost.

Well they can sod off - the real losers are those poor souls born to lose, starving or with poor health or disabilities, now that's something to feel sorry for and do something about, or go to hell for not trying.

What can you, and your brilliant system do to help them? Since when did Capitalism show any compassion and care for anyone else. Profit comes above all else. Under Socialism we can help them, You know why? Because the principle of Socialism is that the support of the fellow human being is how society should operate.

The rest with two arms and two legs, faculties and a brain can go on and get on with it because you were born lucky, by comparison, and, under a free market capitalist system, if you're wasting it it's your own fault and no one else's.

It's funny because the individual has no control over market forces, let alone a government. Free market enterprise in dominated by monopolies, nepotism, cronyism, criminality, etc. There is no room for honest business anymore.

That's why it works and that's why it's great and the alternative, make no mistake, is North Korea, worse than even ancient Rome.

Ancient Rome was capitalist btw. And again, Socialism if you even bother to try to understand it is quite simply the only alternative. All we have seen in history thus far have been attempts to tinker with the capitalist system and introduce reforms here and there, it's all failed. The system needs abolishing.

If ever a face was made for punching look no further than that twenty nine year old just made great leader. That could have been us that could, if you lot had your way, Arthur Scargill's son dropping his thumb at the arena.

At what point did I propose a North Korean dictatorship or putting Scargill's son in charge? Please at least tackle me on points that I make. I'm for Socialism not Stalinism.

That's why we have the ballot box, a peaceful revolution every five years, at least under our system and not PR. But then, if you don't like democracy the chances are it's because you're wrong.

I'll just answer this last point with a paraphrased quote from Marx "We have through Parliament the privilege of choose every three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people Don't talk to me about Democracy! Democracy for who? We have a wave of genuine progressive political thought in Britain today and not one of the Parliamentary parties is there to support it.

I would have nationalised the lot and implemented a Socialist system where there is no production on the basis of profit. But you see this is what I'm saying, you won't accept this line of thinking, you just want me to view it from your own limited perspective. I've given examples already of where planned economies work, and can be far superior but you haven't acknowledged it, so I don't think this can go any further. I'll reply to your last post and that will be it from me for now, I need to revise for my exams...