Question about Thatcher

[Bernie Gunther]

it just seems strange how she was allowed to test out this system on england

i mean, it was capitalism, but not in a way that had been tried anywhere else. it's pretty hard to think of how she was given such free reign without straying into conspiracy theory territory

I think it had been tried previously, in Chile after Pinochet's coup for example.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think it had been tried previously, in Chile after Pinochet's coup for example.

Absolutely. The south American/ Central American states were one of the testing grounds for the fresh economists coming out of the Chicago school.

 

[kyser_soze]

it's all pretty dark isn't it

I must admit like, I do keep drifting into conspiracy theory territory when I think about the whole 'project' from a longer view

It isn't a "conspiracy" in that sense: it's about economic structures.

Like the press giving the news from a consensus-common sense viewpoint: no directives from smoke filled rooms required; the behaviour falls into place because of the structures.

Thanks for explaining that in a way I can carry fwd danny! It comes up lots whenever I'm trying to explain Marxism to people - they often anthropromorphise things like this, and also find it hard letting go of the idea of one individual, or small group, being 'in charge' in a directive sense...

 

[ViolentPanda]

but even if you agreed with what she was doing, it's unavoidable that it was a massive thing to do. bussing police all over the country, increasing unempolyment by millions

even if you agreed with her, it was undeniably incredibly drastic

Of course it was, but given the (as people have said earlier) era in which she took her action, it was able to be excused as being something other than what it was. It was a violent assault on organised labour in particular and the working class in general, but Thatcher and her ideological fellow-travellers were able to present it as a question of internal stability and security, and the perpetuation of that discourse in the media, then and now, means that people asking the questions you're asking have to dig past all the scum on the surface to find solid information.

 

[isitme]

It isn't a "conspiracy" in that sense: it's about economic structures.

Like the press giving the news from a consensus-common sense viewpoint: no directives from smoke filled rooms required; the behaviour falls into place because of the structures.

oh i agree with that, but it's more like, same as with the current financial crisis

there are obviously people who know all this is happening and making it happen

I understand that to some degree it's part of the structure, but it isn't just some out of control thing, it's just all worked out and planned

Like when I watched that Tory Tory thing last year it just struck me as really convenient that the Falklands war turned up just in time to save her project from a dictator with the same school of thought as her

 

[danny la rouge]

Thanks for explaining that in a way I can carry fwd danny! It comes up lots whenever I'm trying to explain Marxism to people - they often anthropromorphise things like this, and also find it hard letting go of the idea of one individual, or small group, being 'in charge' in a directive sense...

Well, you can fall back on the base/superstructure jargon, or you can use an example I once read:

If you imagine the economic structure is a pool triangle (you know, the ones you rack the balls up with). Put that wooden triangle on a table, and tip the right-sized polystyrene balls into it. The heap will form more-or-less a pyramid. No architect is required. Nobody tells the balls to behave that way. It's the shape of the frame that creates that form of edifice. It's the same with society. The shape of the economic framework determines behaviours within it.

Doesn't pay to stretch the analogy, but there you go.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Tebbit, Joseph, Thatcher all publicly on record as saying unemployment was used as a tool to bring down inflation.

Or Lamont saying that the unemployment of the 1980s having been a price worth paying to stabilise the economy, as though human misery counted for nothing if it produced a balance sheet with no red ink.

The real lives of real people put on the scrap-heap as an economic tool.

And yet whenever we have a "die, for fuck's sake, Thatcher you hag" thread, there's always a twat or two who can't understand the utterly rational hatred people have for her and her cronies.

As a means-to-an-end. A specific no-no of the Enlightenment figures (Hume, Smith etc) she said she admired.

She may have "admired" them, but I doubt she'd ever read them.

 

[danny la rouge]

Or Lamont saying that the unemployment of the 1980s having been a price worth paying to stabilise the economy, as though human misery counted for nothing if it produced a balance sheet with no red ink.

And Eddy George but recently said the same thing.

And yet whenever we have a "die, for fuck's sake, Thatcher you hag" thread, there's always a twat or two who can't understand the utterly rational hatred people have for her and her cronies.

Indeed, and I have very seriously long suggested a memorial in every community to the lives she ruined.

She may have "admired" them, but I doubt she'd ever read them.

Fair point.

 

[kyser_soze]

but it isn't just some out of control thing, it's just all worked out and planned

That's just it - it isn't worked out and planned, this stuff happens as a direct result of what comes before it.

Take the sub-prime crisis, which has precipitated a much wider economic crisis. The primary ingredient of risk in all this was on the sub-primes defaulting on their multiply-loans, thus causing the 'real' money that was circulating at the bottom to dissappear, which then caused the whole house of cards to topple. This wasn't some 'planned' event - it happened because of the structure in place.

For example, the mode of the current collapse, and it's severity, were not inevitable (a crash was, but this is a cyclical element of capitalism generally). It's been wildly exacerbated by the massive pile of debt that's been allowed to accumulate (just as the early 90s was, but less so, by the collapse of the junk bond market at the end of the 80s).

 

[ViolentPanda]

oh i agree with that, but it's more like, same as with the current financial crisis

there are obviously people who know all this is happening and making it happen

I understand that to some degree it's part of the structure, but it isn't just some out of control thing, it's just all worked out and planned

Just not in detail.

Like when I watched that Tory Tory thing last year it just struck me as really convenient that the Falklands war turned up just in time to save her project from a dictator with the same school of thought as her

You need to bear in mind the genesis of the Falklands/Malvinas crisis, IMO.
If you analyse why it happened, and factor in the way civil servants work (i.e. at Ministry level you disseminate information to people as much to cover your arse as to leave a permanent record), then it's easy to become suspicious that the FCO etc might have deliberately mishandled events just to see which way the wind was blowing. It can be argued that it was only the Argentinian Junta's decision to invade (thereby receiving much public approbation) rather than taking the diplomatic route that left the Falklands in British hands. We might well have handed the islands over without even a whimper, otherwise.

 

[N_igma]

I meaa a shift of power to the executive and away from the legislature - to the the cabinet and then from the cabinet to the PM. What Halisham called an elected dictatorship.

What purpose would that serve?

 

[butchersapron]

None at all, obviously. Beyond being able to push through contentious plans and policies with little formal opposition.

 

[N_igma]

None at all, obviously. Beyond being able to push through contentious plans and policies with little formal opposition.

And you endorse this?

It can be argued that the role of PM has already become more 'Presidential', the cabinet were almost afraid to challenge Blair when he was in power.

 

[butchersapron]

I just said that. What did you think i was arguing?

 

[N_igma]

Sorry it seems in my drunken stupour last night that I misinterpreted what you were saying.

 

[butchersapron]

Something i never do

 

[Dan U]

And you endorse this?

It can be argued that the role of PM has already become more 'Presidential', the cabinet were almost afraid to challenge Blair when he was in power.

'sofa govt' or whatever the phrase that got coined to describe Blair's style of governing with advisers at the margins.

interesting thread

 

[oake]

I think it comes down, fundamentally, to personalities.

Thatcher had a clear idea of what she thought needed to be done, and just got on and did it. She had strong convictions and a drive to achieve, and very little personal vanity - she didn't care much how she was perceived.

Blair wanted power for its own sake, and was determined to establish his name in the history books. During his first term in office he concentrated almost exclusively on achieving a second term. He lacked any real political conviction; his primary driver was his personal vanity, his second was his wife's obsession with the trappings of wealth.

 

[dennisr]

I think it comes down, fundamentally, to personalities.

Thatcher had a clear idea of what she thought needed to be done, and just got on and did it. She had strong convictions and a drive to achieve, and very little personal vanity - she didn't care much how she was perceived.

Blair wanted power for its own sake, and was determined to establish his name in the history books. During his first term in office he concentrated almost exclusively on achieving a second term. He lacked any real political conviction; his primary driver was his personal vanity, his second was his wife's obsession with the trappings of wealth.

'personalities' have feck all to do with it I am afraid. Both parties you mention were - fundamentally - defending a system of profit and the changing balance of the forces behind them were the deciding factor in how thier 'personalities came across/were presented. Both puppets of the rich and powerful. Both did a good job of it (from their point of view). Both should be hung from lamp posts.

 

[Stoat Boy]

Its Lady Thatcher.

Please get it right next time.

 

[isitme]

Its Lady Thatcher.

Please get it right next time.

it's baroness thatcher

 

[audiotech]

it's baroness thatcher

well spotted.

 

[isitme]

fuckin baroness

is anyone else a baroness?

everyone else that age gets to be a dame or something. they just had to give her a title that sounded evil enough for her

 

[Belushi]

fuckin baroness

is anyone else a baroness?

everyone else that age gets to be a dame or something. they just had to give her a title that sounded evil enough for her

They made Dennis a Baron in order that Mark would inherite a title

 

[DotCommunist]

There will be cheering and popping the Asti corks when the auld cow finally joins pinochet in the cold dark worm ridden earth where she belongs

 

[Bernie Gunther]

They made Dennis a Baron in order that Mark would inherite a title

That'll be nice for him while he's getting arsefucked in jail ...

 

[isitme]

There will be cheering and popping the Asti corks when the auld cow finally joins pinochet in the cold dark worm ridden earth where she belongs

I've said it before on here and I stick by it, I don't go to demonstrations anymore, but I will make the effort to go to london and join in the thatcher is dead party, specially if she gets a state funeral

 

[Belushi]

That'll be nice for him while he's getting arsefucked in jail ...

I think he's got away with it unfortunately I was looking forward to her spending her last years with her beloved boy in an Equatorial Guinean prison

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think he's got away with it unfortunately I was looking forward to her spending her last years with her beloved boy in an Equatorial Guinean prison

Yeah, suspended sentence, but he's clearly a habitual criminal and it's only a matter of time before he screws up again. With a bit of luck next time his mum will be too senile/dead to pull strings for him ...

 

[Haller]

They made Dennis a Baron in order that Mark would inherite a title

Baronet surely?