h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"There is a basic dichotomy at the heart of our current Government though. With regard to the economy, it is firmly non-interventionist in a typical right wing fashion."

non-intervention is a liberal, not "right wing" philosophy. The left of the 19th century tended to support a very "hands off" attitude to social and economic matters. The left only supported dirigist economics after the failure of late 19th-century laissez-faire which lead to everything from the misery of the slums and the sweatshops to the human horror of the Congo Free State.

"In every other aspect however it espouses state intervention in the life of the individual to a degree only previously seen in the USSR."

No hyperbole, there. None at all. Labour = Communism.

"State Institutions are corrupt, incompetent and shackled by PC attitudes."

Sorry to disappoint but the private sector is exactly the same, especially the last two. It's a problem in any large-scale enterprise, public or private.

"A social policy of mass immigration and multiculturalism has been, by the Government's own admission, a resounding failure."

Has the government actually said "mass immigration has been a failure?" And if you want to see the alternative to multiculturalism well just look at France with it's "one culture" policy which has lead to immigrants aggressively defending their identity, strong anti-French feeling and even race riots.

SWL, I keep picking you up on your more strawmanish and boilerplatish posts about "the left" and "socialism" and you always seem to back-down, claim you were misunderstood and briefly follow a more agreeable line of argument (without changing your basic position) before going back to sounding like cut and pastes from an idiot-right blogger. If you're going to remain worth arguing with then please cut the nonsense, stop claiming things like democratic socialism and communism are the same (they're clearly not) and please respect the intelligence of those here a bit more. Thankyou.

Speaking as one of the usual suspects I find I don't need to contribute as Zagreb has summed up my thoughts exactly in his last posting.

Which is nice.

There are many areas of work - teaching, nursing, well, most public sector jobs really - where "sheer hard work" isn't going to make you a millionaire.

Not everybody wants to be one.

Thank goodness.

Sorry Pedro, you're right. I was thinking in a UK context and for me being unemployed = idle.

Zagreb, interesting post but I did not say Labour = Communism. What I said was this government is as intrusive as a Communist one.

I disagree that the Public and Private sectors are equally awful.

Many members of Government are questioning the wisdom of mass immigration, Phil Cruddas for one.

<>

And we don't have a problem with any of the above? Has France had any suicide bombers yet? Multiculturalism, mono-culturalism, interculturalism all fail because they fail to appreciate that immigration on a massive, overwhelming scale causes culture shock and tensions.

Democratic Socialism and Communism are not the same. One is a watered-down version of the other, but to deny that Labour have drawn heavily from Communists in the past is misguided Comrade. There are many ostensibly ex-Communists in positions of power within the Labour Party, John Reid for one.

Respect is a two-way street. When people resort to throwing insults and being derogatory it'll get my back up & I'll respond. If somebody makes a clear, convincing case I'll respond likewise.

<>

<>

These assertions are, quite frankly, laughable. This government has camps where people who criticise are sent to for 15 years? It stops people starting businesses? It closes internet chatrooms so people don't discuss politics.

As for democratic socialism, what exactly do you mean by this? Are we talking the Norwegian government of Tommy Sheridan? It's meaningless without the (tragically infrequent) qualifiers. Using that logic is like saying Dave Cameron is just a powder-puff Nazi.

I said watered-down.

We have a government that forbids protest near the Houses of Parliament. Any protest march has to receive prior state approval. Voice a political opinion and you could lose your job. And yes, opening your mouth can see you sent to prison.

Ring any bells?

"I said watered-down.

We have a government that forbids protest near the Houses of Parliament. Any protest march has to receive prior state approval. Voice a political opinion and you could lose your job. And yes, opening your mouth can see you sent to prison.

Ring any bells?"

None of the above are unique to Communist systems
Apart from forbidding protesting near Parliament they aren't new to Britain either

No, they're not unique to Communism. They are symptomatic of oppressive state control though, the antithesis of free market economies.

<< Voice a political opinion and you could lose your job.>>

Are you talking about supporting the BNP? There are reasons for people not being trusted to *do* their job properly if they are openly racist. Comparing that to Soviet Russia, or even present-day China is absurd.

<>

Examples, please?

Examples? How about Muslims glorifying terrorism? Only words.

<>

That last one was a simulpost. You seem to be saying Labour are authoritarian, so is Communism, so they're versions of the same thing?

And another thing.. The NHS is the antithesis of a free market economy. So is free primary and secondary education. A totally free market economy has never existed, and only a few fringe lunatics would ever want it to.

<>

Ooh, simulpost fever

Incitement to terrorism/murder etc isn't covered by freedom of expression, and you know it. I think you're attempting to muddy the waters here, cos comparing Britain to the USSR is silly.

"No, they're not unique to Communism. They are symptomatic of oppressive state control though, the antithesis of free market economies."

Now I'm afraid you are talking nonsense
Plenty of free market economies like Chile under Pinochet have flourished under authoritarian systems. China seems to be evolving from Communism to free market authoritarianism

"These assertions are, quite frankly, laughable. This government has camps where people who criticise are sent to for 15 years? It stops people starting businesses? It closes internet chatrooms so people don't discuss politics."

Who exactly has been sent to a "camp" for "criticising" the govenment? I've criticised the government quite a few times on this website and others and I've not had the knock at the door yet. What internet chat rooms are being closed so "people don't discuss politics". I've discussed politics on several chatrooms as well as this site. Why are they not closed? Why is this site still functioning?

I suspect you're taking things wildly out of context in order to scaremonger.

As for democratic socialism, what exactly do you mean by this? Are we talking the Norwegian government of Tommy Sheridan?"

No. Democratic socialism would mean, as a good example, the post-war British Labour government which was elected on a popular democratic mandate to implement wide-ranging (but not total) state-socialist policies such as a welfare state, national health service etc. This created a national concensus which persisted until the 1970s when popular disillusionment with the system and trade union militancy lead to the election of a conservative government which dismantled parts of it and moved towards a more monetarist system.

Democratic socialism means achieving a) achieving socialist aims through the democratic process and not revolution and b) adhering to the norms of liberal democratic government (allowing opposition parties to both the left and right to oppose you and replace you, limiting time between elections, holding free and fair elections etc). Undemocratic socialism would mean a socialist government that takes power and does not relinquish it, effectively bans opposition and opposition parties and refuses to hold free and fair elections. Both are socialist governments but there's a clear difference to anyone reasonable. It goes the other way too - Margaret Thatcher and Augusto Pinochet were both capitalists but (hilarious satire aside) only one was a dictator who engaged in murder and torture of political opponents.

"It's meaningless without the (tragically infrequent) qualifiers. Using that logic is like saying Dave Cameron is just a powder-puff Nazi."

As for the first, I've just demonstrated that it isn't. The second part is just strawman stuff.

"Plenty of free market economies like Chile under Pinochet have flourished under authoritarian systems. China seems to be evolving from Communism to free market authoritarianism"

Well, Pinochet proved that the free-market can exist alongside a totalitarian state. China is a different scenario, since despite large moves towards a market-economy it is still far more derigist than Western Europe, Japan or the United States. The Chinese business class don't appear to be making enemies of the CCP, though, as a depressing film I saw a few years ago of an ex-Tiananmen Square protester saying he doesn't hate the Party any more because they've allowed free enterprise demonstrated.

Having said that, I think it's true that free societies need free-markets as much as they need democracy and human rights. People (the left in particular) just need to stop thinking that free markets = greed. Free markets mean exactly that, the right to buy and sell for personal and collective gain without compromising the rights of others.

I was going to just stop digging, but I'm not quite sure why you're arguing the above points Zagreb.

One caveat though:
<>

Umm, many would argue the three main parties are all but indistinguishable these days and, free and fair elections? The level of electoral fraud is so high that the EU are sending inspectors to verify that our elections are indeed free and fair.

<< It closes internet chatrooms so people don't discuss politics.">> Me

Ah, that one was meant to have a (rhetorical) question mark as well. I'm well aware that Britain is nothing like the USSR, and that post was meant to highlight the difference.

As for asking SWL which particular brand of socialism he was on about, he frequently mentions the 'left', as if it is one monolithic block of people who all have the same views, eg that Stalin and Neil Kinnock were two of a kind.

I do think I understand the (fundamental) difference between democratic socialism and Communism. It just wasn't clear from SWL's post that he made a distinction.

"I disagree that the Public and Private sectors are equally awful."

I didn't say they were exactly the same, I said the private sector has problems with incompetence, corruption and is saddled with "PC" attitudes which you had attributed solely to the public sector.

"And we don't have a problem with any of the above? Has France had any suicide bombers yet? Multiculturalism, mono-culturalism, interculturalism all fail because they fail to appreciate that immigration on a massive, overwhelming scale causes culture shock and tensions."

France has had a major problem with Islamist terrorism in the past (remember 1995?) and we've had no race-riots to match what they've had recently. We have serious problems (not least because of our unspoken policy of allowing Islamist terrorists fleeing French justice to settle here in the 1990s) but our system works better than that of the French.

"Democratic Socialism and Communism are not the same. One is a watered-down version of the other, but to deny that Labour have drawn heavily from Communists in the past is misguided Comrade. There are many ostensibly ex-Communists in positions of power within the Labour Party, John Reid for one."

Which proves what? They *stopped* being Communists and *became* democratic socialists. They *changed their minds*. The Labour party has a long history of being anti-communist - go back and look at how the post-war Labour government approached the communist problem and the transatlantic alliance if you don't believe me. It's also worth looking at the attitude Communist parties took towards democratic socialist parties, including Labour.

"Umm, many would argue the three main parties are all but indistinguishable these days"

Well that's because they're all aiming for the same (popular) centre-ground which makes perfect sense (Labour in the 80s and the Conservatives from 1997-2005 both played to their support-base with disasterous consequences) and there are still dozens of other parties with more extreme views of various flavours that people are entitled to vote for. So my point still stands.

"and, free and fair elections? The level of electoral fraud is so high that the EU are sending inspectors to verify that our elections are indeed free and fair."

There have been various cases of parties in and out of government trying to manipulate the electoral process for their own gain, I'll give you that, but this is not remotely the same as ending free elections and the multi-party system which was the difference I was trying to highlight between democracy and totalitarianism. My point stands.

"Ah, that one was meant to have a (rhetorical) question mark as well. blush I'm well aware that Britain is nothing like the USSR, and that post was meant to highlight the difference."

Ah, sorry.