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

"I did not say this was an exhaustive breakdown of views or reasons, however I would say that - "I'm a socialist, but I don't feel guilty about the luxuries I enjoy. I feel very lucky, I'd like others to be able to have them, but I don't feel guilty." - was a fair admission of guilty feelings."

Then I suggest you don't understand what the word 'guilt' means.

Then I suggest you don't understand what the word 'guilt' means.

a socialist, but I don't feel guilty about the luxuries I enjoy. I feel very lucky, I'd like others to be able to have them, but I don't feel guilty

OK - First we have the apology - "I'm a socialist." Then we have the denial - "I don't feel guilty about the luxuries I enjoy," then comes the rationalisation - "I feel very lucky," then the expression of regret - "I'd like others to be able to have them," then the repetition of the denial - "but I don't feel guilty."

Now I'm not demeaning you for feeling guilty, I think we all take for granted so many luxuries that we have, and I think we should all feel horrendously guilty about the things we find to complain about. You however seem to feel that it is wrong to admit to being priveleged. This does not mean I don't know the meaning of the word guilt.

That's complete nonsense.

I know that it is pretty much indisputably not my fault that, for example, some people don't get an education or a clean water supply. I don't feel guilty about it, but I feel its a bad situation that could and should be sorted out.

Oh I see - of course you don't feel guilty - you think someone else should sort it out. No worries then.

The problem with the guilt/jealousy account of the convictions of 'socialists' (which I take to include egalitarians) is that it reduces deeply-held intellectual and moral convictions to mere knee-jerk emotions. It's an ad hominem argument.

I wrote something in my journal recently about the university access debate, and added something from my own experience about how a group of public schoolboys were able to use the old boy network to obtain advantages that are not open to the likes of me.

If anyone were to try to write this off as just 'jealousy' I think this would be very wrong and quite insulting. To be jealous of them would mean wanting their unfair advantage for myself. But what I want is no unfair advantages or disadvantages for anyone - for justice and equality - which is rather different.

My suggested motivations were not meant to be exhaustive, nor were they intended to be derogatory of anyone's beliefs.

I re-call a long conversation with Tony Benn on Bristol station in (I think) 1982. A man of strongly held beliefs which he had patently taken into his every day life. I was so enamoured of the Socialism he spoke of, that I assured him that if he was to stand in my ward I would vote for him. (A seat held at the time by John Butcher) Equally I was impressed by the integrity of Dave Nellist, who stands in a neighbouring ward, again a man I would vote for.

However I see no connection between Tony Blair and the current Labour party and Socialism. A party that has taxed pensions, introduced University fees, and supported privatisation of nationised industries, should not be mention in the same room as the likes of Bevin or Benn. Conversely I would vote for Margaret Thatcher because she was doing what she believed in - not to gain power, but because she believed in what she said.

Yet - somehow - because of a symbol - he is a millionaire socialist I don't understand how any real socialist can support him.

Is he really a socialist or just a Labour politician? I get the impression that socialism & labour are no longer synonymous.

"I re-call a long conversation with Tony Benn on Bristol station in (I think) 1982. A man of strongly held beliefs which he had patently taken into his every day life. I was so enamoured of the Socialism he spoke of, that I assured him that if he was to stand in my ward I would vote for him."

I lost my faith in Benn after his farcical 'interview' with Saddam Hussein. Saddam's far-right regime murdered trade unionists and socialists and if Benn was the sincere humanist and leftist he claims to be he wouldn't have stood to be in the same room as him.

"However I see no connection between Tony Blair and the current Labour party and Socialism. A party that has taxed pensions, introduced University fees, and supported privatisation of nationised industries, should not be mention in the same room as the likes of Bevin or Benn."

I see Blair as more of a Liberal than a socialist but from what I can gather much of Labour's socialist policies have been 'hidden' in order to keep the middle-England votes that won him two elections believing in the 'New' Labour brand. Certainly, compared to Thatcher and Major, Blair sits very much on the Left. The fact that he's not a revolutionary socialist doesn't make him a secret conservative.

"Conversely I would vote for Margaret Thatcher because she was doing what she believed in - not to gain power, but because she believed in what she said."

So did Hitler. So did Stalin. Sorry to sound condescending but I think that's a daft reason to support someone.

I didn't say I would have voted for Hitler or Stalin - I would rather vote for or support someone who stood up for their beliefs rather than someone who changed for whatever was popular - I didn't say I'd vote for anyone's beliefs.

I guess Bliar has a lawyers mentality - divorcing his actions from responsibility. It seems you're saying you'd have voted for Hitler because he was a National Socialist.

"My suggested motivations were not meant to be exhaustive, nor were they intended to be derogatory of anyone's beliefs."

Understood - it's just that I hear the jealousy/guilt thing far too often, and from people who really believe it!

Hmmm...

I see an opportunity to quote Frank Rizzo, once the mayor of Philadelphia.

"A conservative is a liberal who got mugged the night before."

NBY - left of liberal on a lot of issues.

McKay,

"OK - First we have the apology - "I'm a socialist." Then we have the denial - "I don't feel guilty about the luxuries I enjoy," then comes the rationalisation - "I feel very lucky," then the expression of regret - "I'd like others to be able to have them," then the repetition of the denial - "but I don't feel guilty.""

No, first of all we have me identifying myself as a socialist. I'm certainly not apologising for this fact. I'd only be apologising if I thought it was wrong to be a socialist, which of course I don't think otherwise I wouldn't be one. This isn't followed by a denial, but a statement of fact. I do not feel guilty about the luxuries I enjoy, just take a look at my most recent journal entry if you want proof of that. "then comes the rationalisation" - What am I rationalising? Again, this is a statement of fact. I do feel lucky. I feel lucky because I'm not stupid enough not to know that I am lucky. Lucky in being born in the society I was born in, lucky in the genetic lottery, etc. To feel otherwise than lucky would be an act of denial or stupidity. "then the expression of regret" - no, then I express the essence of my reasons for being a socialist, my desire to improve the well being of others.

It baffles me that you can interpret such a clearly worded statement in such a perverse way. It seems you've just gone through each part of what I said and interpreted it to mean the exact opposite of what it says.

"Now I'm not demeaning you for feeling guilty, I think we all take for granted so many luxuries that we have, and I think we should all feel horrendously guilty about the things we find to complain about. You however seem to feel that it is wrong to admit to being priveleged. This does not mean I don't know the meaning of the word guilt."

Where on earth did you get the idea that I think it's wrong to admit to being privileged? It would be wrong not to admit it, given that it's so patently true. I stand by what I said, if you really think I feel guilty then you are either delusional in your appraisal of my psychology, or you are mistaken about the meaning of the term.

"However I see no connection between Tony Blair and the current Labour party and Socialism."

Well, at least we can agree on this.

"I don't understand how any real socialist can support him."

I don't think any of them do.

marking

Dogster - "Well, at least we can agree on this."

Perhaps we'd best let it rest there then However I really did not intend to belittle anyones seriously held beliefs - I have problems with people who vote by habit, but thats my problem.

I don't suppose there's any way of finding out, but I would be interested to know how many people vote by habit, how many seriously consider all the options, how many have some other way of choosing. How different would the result be by random allocation?

*Reads backlog.* Still, same answer for post 1...


History, that's what is is, history.

::bookmark::

Ah, Tony Benn. That old phantom of the Labour Right and the media.

Interestingly, I've just been reading the one volume edition of his diaries (good for long plane journeys). It is clear that he felt socialism and the Labour Party parted ways when Foot was elected leader and promptly tried to overturn every part of the Labour consitution that had a 'leftist' tinge (which in and of itself gives an interesting view of the 'longest suicide note in political history'. Benn also makes it clear that he thinks Kinnock was even less socialist minded and lord alone knows what he thinks of Blair.

As to Saddam - lets be clear - he went there for two reasons only. One was to try and get some of the hostages freed that were then being held by Sadam. In that he was extremely succesful - within a week of the meeting all foriegn nationals in Iraq were given back their 'freedom to travel' as Baghdad expressed it. Secondly he was trying to fiond a middle ground to prevent a war in which Sadam immediately withdrew from Kuwait.

He certainly didn't do any of the revolting toadying that Galloway *appears* to have done. (Not for a moment that I believe even that ghastly individual got any oil out of the deal.)

Blues, I wasn't referring to Benn's meeting Saddam before the first Gulf War (which I didn't know about) I was referring to his meeting him before the *second*. I don't think Benn is an admirer of Saddam (he's certainly not done anything of the scale Galloway did) but his 'avoid war at any cost' mentality lead to his effectively giving a helping hand to a rightwing dictator facing overthrow. Given what Saddam did to the Iraqi left, I found that something of a betrayal. Benn opposed the war against another rightwing dictator, Milosevich, in 1999 but didn't feel the need to conduct an interview with the Yugoslav president in order to let him tell his side of the story.

Ah, fair enough.

Benn often lets his idealism blind him to some of the issues, it's true.