WANTED: 1 article or paragraph to destroy thatcherites faith

[PrinceToad]

Putting that Thatcher quote in context was great. She really was obnoxious.

Modern industry is necessarily a collective activity, with division of labour. All wealth is created by society. Yes, if someone has an economic problem, such as a lack of education, a home, healthcare, access to capital (ie: work), all of us are responsible. Except Thatcher just wanted them, I mean us, to eff off and die.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> But there is no such thing as society in the sense that there are only tax payers to subsidise non-working people. Society only has the money it takes from tax payers. <snip>

Are you assuming that the only kind of tax is the kind that comes out of wages earned for doing work, or do you include tax on unearned income?

There is also the possibility of tax on the profit of shareholders and on rents etc, at least in theory.

If someone assumes that the only possible funding of the public good is through tax is on earned income in the form of wages or the spending of those wages, and ignores the possibility of taxing income from profits, rents etc, aren't they presenting a false opposition?

This false opposition was at the heart of a good deal of thatcherite propaganda in my view, and remains at the heart of blairite propaganda.

Corporation tax in the UK was, last time I looked, the lowest in the so called developed world, lower even than that of the US (25% vs 27% or something like that)

 

[PrinceToad]

Some are unable to help themselves and the state has a duty to take care of such people, but many on benefits were not in that position.

Suddenly 3,000,000 + people suddenly decided, in a time of benefit cuts, to drop out and stay home? Get real.

The problem is that Thatcher and Blair say that giving people an education / job training / capital is a cost to everyone else. In fact, we all benefit when people are in work, and this Thatcherite stuff is just blaming the victims again.

 

[nino_savatte]

Never taken out of context? Contextual? It just shows how differently we think . Compare Thatcher's quote with the quote (last part in particular) from Neil Kinnock on this link http://www.srcf.ucam.org/forwardleft/quotes.htm. Kinnock is a smart man, and I'm sure he knew that she didn't mean any of that "no such thing as society, just 'me' and 'now'" stuff he attributed to her.

I should also have said she was grossly misrepresented with regard to her statement!



She didn't intend that those who need help the most should be ignored. She wanted people who had little inclination to work to take responsibility for themselves instead of relying on the state (or Society as the Left likes to call it). Sadly she failed to achieve even that, and overall taxation rates actually went up. High earners got tax cuts, and rightly so; no one should have to spend more of their time working for the state than they do working for themselves.



But there is no such thing as society in the sense that there are only tax payers to subsidise non-working people. Society only has the money it takes from tax payers. Some are unable to help themselves and the state has a duty to take care of such people, but many on benefits were not in that position. So rather than it being a fundamentally wrong and self-serving attitude, Thatcher was asking that people stopped being just that.


I can't see what class has to do with whether it's right to let others subsidise a person who is perfectly able to support him or herself. And a classless society is never going to happen.

But in answer to Punkrockfaggot's original request for an article or paragraph to destroy the faith of Thatcherites. How about this ...

She signed the Single European Act in which she gave up the UK's power to control important stuff like UK trade policy and accepted that this and some other policies should be decided by Qualified Majority Voting, ie the UK could be outvoted by her EU partners. Many might say 'So what?' but not many "thatcherites" would see what she did as "battling for Britain".

How is it not in context? Every bit of text that surrounds the famous quote relates to her disparaging view of society.

Defending Thatch are you? No one is "grossly misrepresenting" her at all. Her hatred for society is patently obvious. Anything that had a social dimension to it was regarded as 'evil' or would you deny that?

 

[goneforlunch]

Putting that Thatcher quote in context was great. She really was obnoxious.

To you she was obnoxious, but clearly it's just an opinion as she was seen as "the best peacetime PM this country's ever had" by many others, and they are as sure as you seem to be that they are right.

Modern industry is necessarily a collective activity, with division of labour. All wealth is created by society. Yes, if someone has an economic problem, such as a lack of education, a home, healthcare, access to capital (ie: work), all of us are responsible. Except Thatcher just wanted them, I mean us, to eff off and die.

I agree that modern industry (what's left of it) is a collective activity with a division of labour, but wealth is not created by society, but by workers. All the state, or society if you prefer, can do is create the circumstances by which people can create wealth.

No-one in Britain needs to have a lack of education, homes will only become more difficult to get as this Island becomes more crowded, we have free healthcare and anyone who is fit and mentally sound can work if they want to. Why think Thatcher wanted anyone to eff off and die. Perhaps it suits your prejudices to think that?

Are you assuming that the only kind of tax is the kind that comes out of wages earned for doing work, or do you include tax on unearned income?

There is also the possibility of tax on the profit of shareholders and on rents etc, at least in theory.

If someone assumes that the only possible funding of the public good is through tax is on earned income in the form of wages or the spending of those wages, and ignores the possibility of taxing income from profits, rents etc, aren't they presenting a false opposition?

This false opposition was at the heart of a good deal of thatcherite propaganda in my view, and remains at the heart of blairite propaganda

I'm not forgetting the possibility of the tax on shareholders and on rents. And these are taxed. But the money is still earned by someone making shrewd investments. It's not fair that some of it might be inherited wealth, but I think it is still the fairest system we have. So, no, I am not presenting a false opposition.

Corporation tax in the UK was, last time I looked, the lowest in the so called developed world, lower even than that of the US (25% vs 27% or something like that)

A lot of other taxes in the US are different to Britain. But low corporation tax is one of the reasons British business has done so well in recent years, and why our unemployment rates are so low.

 

[goneforlunch]

Suddenly 3,000,000 + people suddenly decided, in a time of benefit cuts, to drop out and stay home? Get real.

Where did I say that? And the most of the people who lost their jobs after this country went through its very painful, but necessary, restructuring found other jobs. They didn't sit back and expect anyone to subsidise their lives.

The problem is that Thatcher and Blair say that giving people an education / job training / capital is a cost to everyone else. In fact, we all benefit when people are in work, and this Thatcherite stuff is just blaming the victims again.

I didn't know either of them had said that, but I'll take your word for it. I'm sure they understand that everyone including society benefits when people are in work. Thatcherism is not blaming victims; it's partly about trying to make sure workers don't become victims of people who would rather let "society" subsidise their lifestyles.

Try a little realism yourself.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> But there is no such thing as society in the sense that there are only tax payers to subsidise non-working people. Society only has the money it takes from tax payers. <snip>

Sure, but it makes a real difference whether support for people who are out of work comes from people who are in work or from people profiting from a reserve army of unemployed that has the function of keeping wages down.

 

[nino_savatte]

I think some people - especially Thatcherites - confuse the word "society" with "state". It is the state that provides benefits which are paid for through direct taxation. Society is a rather different beast to the state.

 

[Fruitloop]

Given that a 1997 report by Deloitte and Touche put the figure for legal avoidance of corporation tax alone (i.e. not counting fraudulent avoidance) at £85 billion a year, it's easy to see who benefits from the 'wages are the only revenue source' nonsense.

I didn't know either of them had said that, but I'll take your word for it. I'm sure they understand that everyone including society benefits when people are in work. Thatcherism is not blaming victims; it's partly about trying to make sure workers don't become victims of people who would rather let "society" subsidise their lifestyles.

The question is, if society takes actions that directly disadvantage particular groups (and they're always the ones at the bottom of the heap, with the least political capital), does society have a responsibility to those same people? And shouldn't those that benefit most from the restructuring be the ones on whom the burden of support falls? The whole 'no such thing as society' balderdash has one aim only, which is to muddy the waters sufficiently to stop the majority of people making this staggeringly obvious connection for themselves.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Given that a 1997 report by Deloitte and Touche put the figure for legal avoidance of corporation tax alone (i.e. not counting fraudulent avoidance) at £85 billion a year, it's easy to see who benefits from the 'wages are the only revenue source' nonsense.

It's also easy to see who benefits from rhetoric urging the unemployed to take any available job, no matter how ill-paid and shitty and calling for the state to crack down on them. The same people making larger profits from lower wages, while avoiding paying even the pitiful amount of tax they're legally obliged to pay.

 

[Fruitloop]

Exactly. According to The Economist in 1999, Rupert Murdoch made £1.4 billion profits over the previous 11 years, but paid no corporation tax at all. After they looked at what was available of the accounts, they estimated that Murdoch would normally have expected to pay enough tax to “build seven new hospitals, 50 secondary schools or 300 primary schools”.

 

[goneforlunch]

How is it not in context? Every bit of text that surrounds the famous quote relates to her disparaging view of society.

It's not in context because the Left apparently preferred to present these comments as those of an uncaring woman, which is clearly the case looking at Kinnock's quote.

"No obligation to the community. No sense of solidarity. No principles of sharing or caring. 'No such thing as society'. No sisterhood, no brotherhood. No neighbourhood. No honouring other people's mothers and fathers. No succouring other people's little children."

How often do you see Thatcher's quote in full? It doesn't suit the image the Left wanted to portray. "No succouring other people's little children"? And you say she wasn't grossly misrepresented!

If Thatcher had a disparaging view of anyone, it was those perfectly fit and able people who allowed "society" to pay for their upkeep. She certainly didn't have a disparaging view of society. I think I have already covered this point, but I suspect that our views will not be reconciled.

Defending Thatch are you? Her hatred for society is patently obvious. Anything that had a social dimension to it was regarded as 'evil' or would you deny that

I'm happy defending her views in the quote and some of her free market ideas. And yes I'd most definitely deny your evil description. I can't imagine why you would think that. You are a socialist and she is a capitalist. Both honourably held positions and it doesn't mean that she hated society any more than her opposite numbers do. They just have different ideal societies.

I think some people - especially Thatcherites - confuse the word "society" with "state". It is the state that provides benefits which are paid for through direct taxation. Society is a rather different beast to the state.

Thatcherites are not confused about society and state. I agree with your definitions: in fact you sound like a thatcherite.

 

[goneforlunch]

Arrgh, I can't keep up. Be back later

 

[Fruitloop]

In context or not, 'there is no such thing as society' has the same truth value as 'there is no such things as bananas', IMO.

 

[nino_savatte]

It's not in context because the Left apparently preferred to present these comments as those of an uncaring woman, which is clearly the case looking at Kinnock's quote.

"No obligation to the community. No sense of solidarity. No principles of sharing or caring. 'No such thing as society'. No sisterhood, no brotherhood. No neighbourhood. No honouring other people's mothers and fathers. No succouring other people's little children."

How often do you see Thatcher's quote in full? It doesn't suit the image the Left wanted to portray. "No succouring other people's little children"? And you say she wasn't grossly misrepresented!

If Thatcher had a disparaging view of anyone, it was those perfectly fit and able people who allowed "society" to pay for their upkeep. She certainly didn't have a disparaging view of society. I think I have already covered this point, but I suspect that our views will not be reconciled.



I'm happy defending her views in the quote and some of her free market ideas. And yes I'd most definitely deny your evil description. I can't imagine why you would think that. You are a socialist and she is a capitalist. Both honourably held positions and it doesn't mean that she hated society any more than her opposite numbers do. They just have different ideal societies.



Thatcherites are not confused about society and state. I agree with your definitions: in fact you sound like a thatcherite.

I am not a Thatcherite but I get the feeling that you are. You confuse the words state and society and you lot do it all the time. Thatcher cared nothing for society at large and had a special contempt for the working class. Large groups of organised people are more difficult to deal with, unlike individuals.

I don't know why you're quoting Kinnock. I presume the rationale for that is because you see those who opposed Thatcher as supporters of Kinnock but here's some news for you: I couldn't stand Kinnock, he sold out his party and spent much of his time as leader sucking up to Thatcher.

As for communities: she destroyed them wholesale because they didn't conform to her vision of a new Jerusalem. Metropolitan councils were legislated out of existence because they dared voice opposition to her policies. In the 1930's she'd have had her opponents killed or imprisoned - just like Hitler and Mussolini. But it was the 1980's so she used legislation as her weapon.

Only a Thatcherite would think that because Thatcherites can only think inside the box.

 

[goneforlunch]

Given that a 1997 report by Deloitte and Touche put the figure for legal avoidance of corporation tax alone (i.e. not counting fraudulent avoidance) at £85 billion a year, it's easy to see who benefits from the 'wages are the only revenue source' nonsense.

I didn't say or even imply that wages are the only revenue source, so maybe you meant to put this point to someone else.

 

[goneforlunch]

Sure, but it makes a real difference whether support for people who are out of work comes from people who are in work or from people profiting from a reserve army of unemployed that has the function of keeping wages down.

Are you saying that people are deliberately kept out of work?

 

[goneforlunch]

It's also easy to see who benefits from rhetoric urging the unemployed to take any available job, no matter how ill-paid and shitty and calling for the state to crack down on them. The same people making larger profits from lower wages, while avoiding paying even the pitiful amount of tax they're legally obliged to pay.

I'm calling for people to take any available job and I'm not amongst your category making larger profits from lower wages.

Exactly. According to The Economist in 1999, Rupert Murdoch made £1.4 billion profits over the previous 11 years, but paid no corporation tax at all. After they looked at what was available of the accounts, they estimated that Murdoch would normally have expected to pay enough tax to “build seven new hospitals, 50 secondary schools or 300 primary schools”.

If Murdoch's avoiding paying taxes he is legally obliged to pay, he ought to be brought to book. But it won't happen. He's a friend of Blair and the establishment.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The functional effect of unemployment is to lower wages in the overall economy. The advocacy of government crackdowns aimed at forcing people off benefits and into work, no matter how shitty and low paid that work is, also clearly has the functional effect of lowering wages, and hence increasing shareholder profits. Meanwhile, taxes on those profits are evaded, with the help of high-priced lawyers that most people on wages couldn't dream of affording (I seem to recall Mrs Thatcher worked in this field at one time)

Shareholders therefore not only benefit from increased unemployment and crackdowns against those on benefits, via lower wages, they also benefit from the transfer of the tax burden of providing benefit for those who are unemployed, onto wage earners, by means of tax avoidance and evasion.

Nice little racket really.

 

[Fruitloop]

I'm calling for people to take any available job

It's always bemused me why this is even philosophically desirable - disregarding for the moment the double standard being applied to rich and poor. Is it really a social requirement that people should do absolutely anything rather than accept money from the collective pot, even if this work is ethically dubious, soul-destroyingly boring/pointless, or less well rewarded than the worker would otherwise be on benefits?

To think this way (and this is in fact the mesage that is being pushed by the Thatcher quote in its entirety) involves a revaluation of the relationship between individuals and society - not least in the acceptance of the market as the sole determinant of what constitutes socially necessary labour. To my mind, it's testament to the power of ideology that so many working people have been brought to think about their relationship to the state and society in this manner.

 

[Sorry.]

Real wages and GDP both went up twice as fast in 1970s than they did in the 1980s...

 

[gilhyle]

But there is no such thing as society in the sense that there are only tax payers to subsidise non-working people. Society only has the money it takes from tax payers. Some are unable to help themselves and the state has a duty to take care of such people, but many on benefits were not in that position. So rather than it being a fundamentally wrong and self-serving attitude, Thatcher was asking that people stopped being just that.

There is no such thing as tax payers, there is only society recycling its wealth in a non-symmetrical fashion.

 

[Poi E]

Milton Freidman recants

 

[goneforlunch]

The functional effect of unemployment is to lower wages in the overall economy. The advocacy of government crackdowns aimed at forcing people off benefits and into work, no matter how shitty and low paid that work is, also clearly has the functional effect of lowering wages, and hence increasing shareholder profits. Meanwhile, taxes on those profits are evaded, with the help of high-priced lawyers that most people on wages couldn't dream of affording (I seem to recall Mrs Thatcher worked in this field at one time)

Shareholders therefore not only benefit from increased unemployment and crackdowns against those on benefits, via lower wages, they also benefit from the transfer of the tax burden of providing benefit for those who are unemployed, onto wage earners, by means of tax avoidance and evasion.

Nice little racket really.

Wages are as high or as low as the labour market will stand. Businesses exist to make money for shareholders. If a person is on benefits and is offered a job, in my view they should take it. It's easier to find a job if you already have one. You create an employment history that impresses potential employers. No one is saying that a worker must stay in a low paid, "shitty", job. I'm not saying that a worker who looses his job on a Friday must take such a job within a week. But the long term unemployed can't afford to be so choosy.


Nice theory, but many shareholders ARE also wage earners, or workers' pension funds. However, I don't disagree entirely as I think the country's ecomony is run for the benefit of big business.

Also your theory about the drive for more workers could easily be applied to our Lab/Con party's open house policy on immigrants ... After all they HAVE added massively to the pool of potential workers.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You seem to have messed up your quotes there.

Making it appear that the middle paragraph consists of my words when they're yours.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The easiest way to fix it would be to press edit on the post in question, then cut and paste your words out of the bit in quotes so they no longer look like they're mine.

 

[goneforlunch]

The easiest way to fix it would be to press edit on the post in question, then cut and paste your words out of the bit in quotes so they no longer look like they're mine.

My apologies.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

My apologies.

No problem. I know you're new and figured it probably wasn't deliberate.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Also your theory about the drive for more workers could easily be applied to our Lab/Con party's open house policy on immigrants ... After all they HAVE added massively to the pool of potential workers.

Especially those bogus asylum seekers ay?

 

[goneforlunch]

Especially those bogus asylum seekers ay?

Not really. An immigrant takes up the same amount of space whether they are legal or illegal.