The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why the left is afraid of itself > Comments

Why the left is afraid of itself : Comments

By Aidan Anderson, published 10/9/2015

The very real possibility that a politician from the left will assume leadership of a mainstream political party has sent British commentators into hysterics.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Rhian

I appreciate your arguments and those of Tristan's, but to diminish the ideological basis of the opposing sides is not very helpful.

Yes, there were factors other than the OPEC demand for oil price justice that started the momentum towards the crises that plagued the Western economies during the 1970s (the build-up of fiscal liquidity post-WWII, the rebuilding of the war-devastated European and Japanese economies; excessive and wasteful Cold War military spending; regional wars to destroy the spread of communism in Asia, socialism in Latin America and pan-Arab nationalism in the Middle East; the release of the US dollar from the gold standard; and a vast expansion of affluence-driven consumer spending throughout the West).

However, the ideological framework to 'explain' the crises of 1974-5 by putting much of the blame on profligate social spending by left-wing ‘Keynsian’ economic ideology endures to this day. For example, much of the narrative surrounding the fall of the Whitlam government still stubbornly refuses to attribute its demise to global economic factors that were well and truly outside of its control.

Clashing economic theories aside (which I don’t altogether discount), the history of the last 200 years shows a fairly common 30-year cycle of left-right control of the narrative. The current cycle, dominated by what is often referred to as ‘neo-liberalism’ (which is just the latest label attached to the right-wing worldview), is not only coming to an end, but has left the global economy in what can charitably be called a ‘crisis’, but less than charitably called ‘a mess’.

Jeremy Corbyn may or may not win on Saturday (and the anti-Corbyn political-media establishment is doing everything in its power to ensure he doesn’t), but his meteoric rise in the Labour leadership contest is only a symptom of a rising tide against the excesses of 30 years of right-wing neo-liberalism. Gravity is pulling the pendulum back to a centre ground of social justice-based global economics.

Watch this space.
Posted by Killarney, Friday, 11 September 2015 1:15:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reason why successful mainstream media opposes Left wing economics Aiden, is because they reflect mainstream thinking, which takes it for granted that the Left are a bunch of fringe group idiots. Left wing economics will not, has not, and never will work. How many times does it need to fail before "intelligent" people like yourself can figure that out? Are you are Greek who voted for Syrizia?

Left wing politics today is about appealing to the unproductive and counter productive, to vote for them by giving them public money fleeced from the productive. The trick to getting into power therefore, is to increase the unproductive until they become an absolute majority. What the Left needs is a growing pool of people entirely dependent upon their leftist governments for their economic survival. So the Left will advocate any program which increases the unproductive and counter productive, and screws "the rich" (read ordinary worker taxpayers). Who in the left cares if Aussie women are gang raped by Muslim race hate rape packs? Or our suburbs echo every night to the sound of gunfire from ethnic gangsters?

Thus we get "baby bonuses" which ensures a steep increase in aboriginal people, who are our most dependent and unproductive. We get open borders which will ensure a flood of boat people, who can be relied upon to vote labour forever, who need to get housing, money, medical attention, English language skills, job training, and prisons, and be a burden on the "rich" taxpayers.

Climate change is another rort. Screw the productive with new "environmental" charges which will rake in billions, so that the Left can buy the votes of their unproductive constituency.

The problem is Greece, Aiden. Sooner or later, as Margaret Thatcher so presciently pointed out, the Left runs out of other people's money to spend. And the funniest thing about Lefties, is that they not only want to screw the productive for every penny they have, they will oppose any idea which the productive have that will make money, on the grounds that it must be doing some environmental evil somewhere.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 11 September 2015 4:12:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I consider myself strongly influenced by Marxism ; and I also consider myself interested in learning more about Neo-Kantianism. Marxism was never really big in theorising ethics for example. And the Post-Marxists and Democratic Revisionists point to some of the problems with Marxism as well. But yes there's still a fair bit worthwhile in the Marxist tradition. Will say more later.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 11 September 2015 11:37:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How is it that people think 'right-wing economics' 'works' when it leaves a trail of poverty ; with an underclass and working poor?

You talk about non-productivity - But surely one of the best indications of 'productivity' is full employment. Which the Swedes achieved for decades alongside a strong welfare state and strong unions.

Underlying 'right wing economics' are a number of assumptions.

a) that there should be no 'distortion' in the way of regulation or redistribution
b) that the 'market' is always right when 'undistorted' - so there's no point arguing about the unjust position of the working poor.
c) that capitalists 'create wealth' and not workers
d) That the vulnerable (eg: the disabled, sole parents) should be left to their own devices because supporting them comprises a 'distortion'.

That outlook is morally bankrupt. We're talking real people - human beings - who should not be 'sacrificed' for the sake of some economic model.

Also the Great Depression showed where laissez-faire can take us. The GFC showed this too - Without governments bailing the system out all those 'productive' capitalists (including speculators) would have been well and truly stuffed.

LEGO - you talk of 'the Left running out of other peoples' money to spend.'

Well first opposition to redistribution rests on the assumption that market-mediated distribution is 'essentially just'. So if a textiles worker is doing outwork for $4/hour 'that must be just' because 'the market has decided it'. By contrast I think government must intervene to right these wrongs.

Secondly a 'social insurance model' potentially helps everyone - and provides everyone with a safety net. What do you have against social insurance?

Finally tax can be a form of 'collective consumption'. And often we will get more for our money via collective consumption re: tax than we would as private consumers in the 'marketplace'. An excellent example is the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

That's without even getting to the ethics of social solidarity - and the immorality of letting your fellow human beings 'go under' when things go wrong because of sickness, accident, job loss etc.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 11 September 2015 12:04:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Killarney

The first oil price shock hit Australian prices in the December quarter of 1973. At that time, inflation was already high and rising rapidly. It was 9.9% in the September quarter 1973, up from 5.7% a year previously and a massive increase from the typical rates of about 2½% in the 1960s. Male wages rose by 11.8% in the year to September 1973. Subsequently, Australia experienced high and rising inflation and unemployment simultaneously, and to greater degree and for longer than could be explained by oil prices alone. Whitlam’s massive fiscal stimulus coincided with rapidly rising unemployment, reaching successive post-war highs. The oil shocks exacerbated an inflationary spiral already well under way. The subsequent fiscal stimulus and other Whitlam policies made things worse still.

These facts, rather than an ideological conversion, are what caused policy makers to rethink the previous Neo-Keynesian orthodoxy. I don’t deny there is an ideological element to both sides, but the change in economic thinking at the time was not based just in ideology, but bitter experience.

You could be correct that the ideological tide is turning to the left, in which case Corbyn could well be just what UK Labour needs. But the recent election there doesn’t suggest so. The fear of many is that a Corbyn-led Labour Party will be unelectable, and that will be bad news for UK democracy.

Hi Tristan

You are attacking a caricature that bears little relationship to what your targets actually say and the policies they actually implement. Name any mainstream politician or policymaker who believes there should be no regulation or redistribution.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 11 September 2015 12:23:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'reduce greenhouse gases by requiring polluters to pay for their emissions.'
Muddled. The coal based generators of electricity simply passed on the tax. The carbon tax was designed tp reduce consumption.
Posted by Outrider, Friday, 11 September 2015 3:50:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy