Socialist legend Tony Benn goes in on Thatcher and big government

I don't know where to put this video so I'll put it here. I think this is a video that many will enjoy, even Capitalists I dare say, as he takes a very anti big government position, which is something in tune with many free market capitalists.

It's interesting to me that despite the vast political differences people have the same gripes with big government and statism.

This is certainly one of the best poplitical speeches ever

reply to post by JailTales


Of course he likes socialism, he gets his money from the theft of other people! What else can you expect?

Privatization is the way to go! But with it there needs to be deregulation too! Otherwise it will be no different from the system we have now...

Originally posted by JailTales
It's interesting to me that despite the vast political differences people have the same gripes with big government and statism.

Well in America they have things a little twisted. Socialism is big government and capitalism is small government. It's all lies...

The Big Myth

The myth is widespread and deeply rooted that big business and big government are rivals—that big business wants small government.

A 1935 Chicago Daily Tribune column argued that voting against Franklin D. Roosevelt was voting for big business. "Led by the President," the columnist wrote, "New Dealers have accepted the challenge, confident the people will repudiate organized business and give the Roosevelt program a new lease on life." However, three days earlier, the president of the Chamber of Commerce and a group of other business leaders met with FDR to support expanding the New Deal....

Big Business and Big Government

Socialism needs no government at all, that is why we have Libertarian Socialism, another term for Anarchism. Anarchism is a form of socialism, it is worker ownership, with no state system.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin, known as one of the founders of Anarchism and was Marx's biggest rival.

THE TEMPESTUOUS relation between Marx and Bakunin is a well known legacy of the history of western socialism. As co-members of the International Working Men’s Association, they seem to have devoted as much energy battling one another as their common enemy, the capitalist system, culminating in Marx’s successful campaign to expel Bakunin from the organization. While at times engaging in cordial relations, they nevertheless harbored uncomplimentary mutual assessments. According to Marx, Bakunin was “a man devoid of all theoretical knowledge” and was “in his element as an intriguer”,1 while Bakunin believed that “... the instinct of liberty is lacking in him [Marx]; he remains from head to foot, an authoritarian”.

The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict

But I would also question Tony Bens claim of being a socialist, a liberal he is, but socialist? He was a member of the Labour Party, which hasn't been socialist since before WWII. The British Labour Party is liberal not socialist, much like the American Democrats.

For a political party to be socialist it must be a revolutionary government working towards worker ownership. The labour party supports capitalism with a social safety net.

Ed Miliband's speech on responsible capitalism

Labour has called for "more responsible and better capitalism" and policies to tackle excessive executive pay.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by JailTales

 

Of course he likes socialism, he gets his money from the theft of other people! What else can you expect?

But that is liberalism, not socialism.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production.

Privatization is the way to go! But with it there needs to be deregulation too! Otherwise it will be no different from the system we have now...

Private ownership of the means of production is exploitation of labour. Capitalists have a monopoly on the means to produce, which allows them to manipulate, and control, the state, and government, to their benefit.

Worker ownership is the way to go. That way we could produce for our needs, rather than for the profit of the private owner. The capitalist system is set up to allow exploitation and corruption through economic power.

reply to post by ANOK

But that is liberalism, not socialism. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production.

Well I disagree to be honest... Socialism needs a central government to share the wealth, it couldn't be achieved without a central government. You say do away with capitalism but it is capitalism that dictates where things need to go and how much and when. How would you know what people want in a socialist society without central planning?

Private ownership of the means of production is exploitation of labour. Capitalists have a monopoly on the means to produce, which allows them to manipulate, and control, the state, and government, to their benefit. Worker ownership is the way to go. That way we could produce for our needs, rather than for the profit of the private owner. The capitalist system is set up to allow exploitation and corruption through economic power.

Again I disagree, because you insert a straw man... Yes at the MOMENT we have corporations lobbying government etc and using their "authority" to exploit people. But that is not capitalism! That is CRONY-capitalism. We need anarco-capitalism Or free market capitalism... I want rid of government too! But we need some system to be able to determine where resources should go! There is no way to do that without capitalism!

Think about a socialist society, how exactly do you think it would function? How would you determine payment for your services? How would you know the value of a particular service? Or do you think everyone should be paid the same? If so how would you enforce that? With no government to enforce it the world would easily slip into capitalism again anyway! Because say people didn't grow wheat and therefore there was not much bread? People would want bread and be willing to pay more for it! That is supply and demand! You need that and it is natural and self rectifying. Hence you do not need central planning, hence you do not need government.

Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by JailTales

 

Of course he likes socialism, he gets his money from the theft of other people! What else can you expect?

Privatization is the way to go! But with it there needs to be deregulation too! Otherwise it will be no different from the system we have now...

Did the 80's and 90's completely miss you...

Or are you just a leftie-hating ignoramus?

reply to post by mr-lizard

Did the 80's and 90's completely miss you... Or are you just a leftie-hating ignoramus?

Well I was born in 81, so no... Don't exactly see what your point is... Things were no different than they are now... Apart from the fact we had the awful british rail! I knew that very well!

I love how you just make insults with nothing to back it up!

I don't care about right nor left! That is a BS paradigm that means nothing really as they are all the same in reality! They may say one thing or the other but it means nothing when it comes down to it!

The facts are that the system we have now can not continue! You can not continue spending more than you receive/steal... It has to end! I know the freebies are nice, but sorry it's finished!

I'm also against the use of force! I'm against THEFT! Not sure if you're aware but stealing is against the LAW! But if government calls it tax it is fine...

reply to post by mee30

Privatization is the way to go!

Rubbish !!!

Do you think you're getting a good deal on Insurance, Energy, Water ?

Privatisation on essentials leads to nothing more than a Monopoly, for instance look at how much Americans pay for health services...Thousands of pounds charged for an X-ray.

Privatisation on goods that you can take or leave should prices go too high then fair enough, but not essentials.

reply to post by JailTales


Sad we no longer have such great orators in the House of Commons. The political landscape has never looked so flat, with almost a 3 party consensus.

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by mee30

 

Privatization is the way to go!

Rubbish !!!

Do you think you're getting a good deal on Insurance, Energy, Water ?

Privatisation on essentials leads to nothing more than a Monopoly, for instance look at how much Americans pay for health services...Thousands of pounds charged for an X-ray.

Privatisation on goods that you can take or leave should prices go too high then fair enough, but not essentials.

I love people that cherry pick! lol... This is the WHOLE quote, perhaps you can read it again and have a little THINK about it...

Privatization is the way to go! But with it there needs to be deregulation too! Otherwise it will be no different from the system we have now...

No we are not getting a good deal now and that is because of the GOVERNMENT! I want rid of the GOVERNMENT! I want rid of REGULATIONS that prevent people starting their own business! If more people can start a business then there will be more options, hence more competition and that drive prices DOWN!

reply to post by mee30


You want no government and no taxes? Who will pay for the roads and infrastructure, education, military. The free market economy? Why do you want to do away with things that people have fought for, for generations? You were born in 81 you say, so you like myself have absolutely no idea of the real sacrafices previous generations made towards this country and now you want to do away with it all, because you have discovered right wing libertarianism.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by mee30

 

You want no government and no taxes? Who will pay for the roads and infrastructure, education, military. The free market economy? Why do you want to do away with things that people have fought for, for generations? You were born in 81 you say, so you like myself have absolutely no idea of the real sacrafices previous generations made towards this country and now you want to do away with it all, because you have discovered right wing libertarianism.

Who will pay for the road, who will pay for education yada yada... The same old tired questions that have been answered many times!

But okay I'll humor it... Just because YOU can not see a way for these thing to be provided PEACEFULLY does NOT give you the right to advocate the use of force!

People used to ask "but if we do away with slavery, who will pick the cotton!" IT DOESN'T MATTER! The fact is slavery needed to end! Then we can deal with who picks the cotton!

It is the same now! The use of FORCE needs to end! Then we can work out the details... But surely we can agree that forcing people to do things is wrong right? Do you have a partner? If so did you force them to be your partner? When you want sex, do you force people to have sex with you? Of course FORCE is WRONG! We have known this and been told this since we were children! Do not steal, do not hit etc etc...

The hard work of previous generations is a ridiculous argument! For one they got PAID! But you think they ought to be paid again? That's just odd!

All I want is a FREE and PEACEFUL society... I'm not sure how that is so wrong...

The real truth is people want FREE STUFF! They are going to kick and scream when it all comes to an end! But come to an end it will one way or another! So we had better just get used to it.

reply to post by mee30


You want a free and peaceful society, yet advocate the ideology of the Law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, social darwinism.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by mee30

 

You want a free and peaceful society, yet advocate the ideology of the Law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, social darwinism.

So like most other people you have no reply other then the same old critique? Law of the jungle? Do you see the human race as animals? If so do you really think that we should give a portion of these terrible animals the monopoly of the use of force? How is that a good idea? Of course it isn't! Do you know how many people throughout history that have died due to government? Do you know how many peoples rights have been violated due to government?

Do I think people should be allowed to make mistakes? YES! People should be allowed to make mistakes! The results will be far less catastrophic than they are at the present!

I actually have a little faith in people, and I think in general people are good. And I think people actually do want to help people! Ask yourself, if we had a free and open society would you help someone out that was less fortunate than yourself? Would you donate to charity lets say?

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Btw in a free society you could have socialism! There would be nothing stopping you and a bunch of other people joining together to share resources! And there would most definitely be a myriad of such groups, all with their own features and benefits... They will all have their own rules too no doubt... You could CHOOSE which you wanted to join! You could CHOOSE to join non of them!

This kind of free market would encourage great systems and possibilities because if your idea/group sucked your group wouldn't last long and would die out! Only promoting the best of the best! There would be incentive for great things to be achieved and peacefully too...

Do you not see that? Central planning DOESN'T work! It has never worked! Oh sure it does for a time! Because they just steal money of everyone! They can devalue the currencies at will! They can borrow money off future generations! But even this is merely patching over the cracks! Eventually the house of cards comes tumbling down!

We need a new approach! We need to think of some new guide lines! Would you like to play a game along those lines? We start from scratch! imagine that nothing exists! No structures or rules at all! We can lay down some foundations... The first one in my opinion MUST be we can not use force against other people! Or do you think we should? If you think we should, can I then use force against YOU?

reply to post by mee30


The problem with this approach, is that it does not adress the problems of inequalities of wealth, in fact it would only concentrate that wealth in a fewer and fewer hands and the social safety net would be removed. The wealthy would be able to finance their own armies and security services, while the poor would be subject to the rich with no balance and no collective organisation to protect against the powerful.

It's an interesting philosophy, but fails to address some extremely important issues.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by mee30

 

The problem with this approach, is that it does not adress the problems of inequalities of wealth, in fact it would only concentrate that wealth in a fewer and fewer hands and the social safety net would be removed. The wealthy would be able to finance their own armies and security services, while the poor would be subject to the rich with no balance and no collective organisation to protect against the powerful.

It's an interesting philosophy, but fails to address some extremely important issues.

But you are giving up on it before even giving it a real good chance! We have a system in place now that is supposed to address inequality, do you think it is working? lol... Why would a corporation have it's own private army? If they acted immorally then people can stop buying from them!

I don't think it would go down as you describe at all... In fact the system we have now is how you describe... All problems can be overcome when we put our minds to it! Just because right now you can not think of a solution does not give you the right to advocate the use of force against people that disagree with you!

I have actually addressed a lot of these issues already by saying that groups will be created that you could join! It is obvious... There will be insurance companies that you could join and will pay you in times of need... If they act badly the people that are with them will move somewhere else and they will be forgotten...

Give it a little more time... It is a very interesting subject and something I have given much thought to... As people we can come together and solve these issues! We can do it all peacefully and without the use of force! There will be much less death and destruction as a result world wide!

Will it be perfect? Probably not, but it will grow and evolve into something unbelievable...

Gotta go take the kids down the park now. Have a little think on it... If you want later we can even have a skype debate on the subject.

reply to post by mee30


But the wealth, resources and media are all in the hands of a few. These people are not about to give any of this uo or share the opportunity in gaining access to this wealth and these resources. Obviously we cant use violence to get the opportunity to play on the same field as the current ruling class. So a transition to a Libertarian model would only give more power to the ruling elite. It would not readress any balance.

I'm trying to look at this from a real life perspective, with the way things are today. Your proposing an ideology that is just as unrealistic in the current climate as socialism in it's true sense.

Originally posted by mee30
Well I disagree to be honest... Socialism needs a central government to share the wealth, it couldn't be achieved without a central government. You say do away with capitalism but it is capitalism that dictates where things need to go and how much and when. How would you know what people want in a socialist society without central planning?

No socialism does not need central government. Socialism is worker ownership, workers organizing and running industry themselves. It can be completely libertarian (anarchism).

The wealth is shared because all people able to work will be able to work. There would be no unemployment. There would be no capitalists keeping the means of production out of peoples hands.

Capitalism does not dictate where things go. Capitalism is simply private ownership of the means to produce.
A monopoly on production. The capitalists dictate what is produced, to maintain scarcity, and manipulate the market to their benefit.

How would we know what people want? Why do 'we' need to know that? We don't know that now, desire is created artificially. The only things we know we need are food and shelter, and a lot of the world doesn't have that due to capitalism and the monopoly over production.

Again I disagree, because you insert a straw man... Yes at the MOMENT we have corporations lobbying government etc and using their "authority" to exploit people. But that is not capitalism! That is CRONY-capitalism. We need anarco-capitalism Or free market capitalism... I want rid of government too! But we need some system to be able to determine where resources should go! There is no way to do that without capitalism!

Yes it is capitalism. Capitalism is simply the 'private ownership of the means of production'. It is a left-wing term appropriated by capitalists who added the 'free-market' lie to it.

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism is an authoritative system, it can not be anarchist in the true sense. Even if they were no government, the capitalists would still have authority over the workers. Anarchism is not just no government, it is a political system that offers an alternative to capitalism. Anarchism is and has always been a form of socialism.

Think about a socialist society, how exactly do you think it would function? How would you determine payment for your services? How would you know the value of a particular service? Or do you think everyone should be paid the same? If so how would you enforce that? With no government to enforce it the world would easily slip into capitalism again anyway! Because say people didn't grow wheat and therefore there was not much bread? People would want bread and be willing to pay more for it! That is supply and demand! You need that and it is natural and self rectifying. Hence you do not need central planning, hence you do not need government.

Socialist society would not be based on making profit, it is a needs based system. What keeps us in bondage and poverty is the capitalist need to make profit. If the workers own the means of production then the workers would decide what their community needs, not a private owner who has no vested interest in the community.
In a worker owned economy we wouldn't send jobs overseas to cheaper labour markets, we would use the machinery to produce what we need. It is a community based system, each community would decide what their needs are.

Capitalism is a centralized system, the means to produce are owned and controlled by a minority class for their own benefit, not for the collective benefit of the community. Production should be for the benefit of the community, not for private bank accounts.

Capitalism makes a lot of money that the community that works get no benefit from. Capitalist profit increase while workers wages stagnate or reduce. Capitalists send your jobs overseas, again denying you and your community needed resources.

Capitalism wastes resources by producing crap we don't need, because some idiot somewhere with more money than sense wants it.

The capitalist system was set up simply for land owners to exploit the commoners.

reply to post by mee30


This is what your privatization did.

With the NHS "reforms" in full swing, the failures of rail privatisation provide important lessons. Britain has the most expensive train fares in the world. On the back of the McNulty review, the government is now set to push them even higher. How does a service intended to benefit millions find itself impoverishing them, and why is our political class determined to let it continue?....

....It is estimated around 2,000 firms now operate Britain's trains. After a string of fatal crashes, culminating at Hatfield in 2000, the safety record of the marketised system lay in tatters. Railtrack, the commercial company setup to oversee track maintenance, was effectively renationalised, becoming Network Rail. Fragmentation and the contested liabilities it creates pose a serious barrier to safety. How long before Andrew Lansley's NHS "kitemark" has its own Hatfield moment, none can say....

Rail privatisation has failed – and the NHS is hurtling down the same track

You were born in 81 so you missed the change from nationalisation to privatisation so you really have no way to compare. I left school in 80, and lived through it mate.