what, no 'fifteen years since thatcher resigned' thread?

[hibee]

about to go home, so can/will only respond to this point v briefly -

I choose this point as i think it shows why I have a problem with calling it 'Thatchers legacy' - labours new found terminology, worldview etc, are only in part based upon what Thatcher did - far more they are based on the vastly different needs of world capital - they had made the shift to supply side, proto-neo-liberal (apologies for making up such a horrid word) policies came before her election. i think there is too much credit being given to her for changes which she wasn't really responsible for, and many of her wholesale reactionary notions (lets chuck the family into the pot here too as an example - hopefully a better one than my earliers) have not been followed.

The difference was that, for various reasons, the proto-Thatcherite policies of the 1970s were implemented in a fairly cack-handed fashion that was a) unable to command popular enthusiasm b) not even particularly helpful to the interests of capital itself. The success of Thatcherism as an enduring idea and set of policy prescriptions has a lot to do with how well certain myths were popularised under her premiership - although of course this process of legitimising "Thatcherism" involved a lot more people than Thatcher herself. But her involvement in symbolic set pieces like the Falklands, the Miner's strike and her various aphorisms d a lot to do with linking the myth of the new era with the myth of "Maggie."

As far as your comments about social values like the "family". Obviously the new right was a coalition of libertarians like Hayeck and the more socially conservative. That sort of "family values" played its part in helping undermine another aspect of post-war social democracy, i.e. relative social liberalism. Nowadays, however, neo-liberalism has no need for that sort of talk, because the substantive economic primacy of capital has been entrenched. So the lib dems and some labour and tories can call themselves liberal on social issues.

 

[LLETSA]

about to go home, so can/will only respond to this point v briefly -

I choose this point as i think it shows why I have a problem with calling it 'Thatchers legacy' - labours new found terminology, worldview etc, are only in part based upon what Thatcher did - far more they are based on the vastly different needs of world capital - they had made the shift to supply side, proto-neo-liberal (apologies for making up such a horrid word) policies came before her election. i think there is too much credit being given to her for changes which she wasn't really responsible for, and many of her wholesale reactionary notions (lets chuck the family into the pot here too as an example - hopefully a better one than my earliers) have not been followed.

Hibee answers the point in more substance, but Thatcher herself was responsible for neither the ideological content of 'Thatcherism, nor the practical policies. She was merely the figurehead, providing a convenient label for the developing fanatical neo-liberal creed she chose to embrace. The fact that all the major parties still follow an agenda based on that ideology and content (however disguised) is proof of its perniciousness and power and does indeed prove that the legacy of Thatcher still flourishes.

 

[Fedayn]

Hibee answers the point in more substance, but Thatcher herself was responsible for neither the ideological content of 'Thatcherism, nor the practical policies. She was merely the figurehead, providing a convenient label for the developing fanatical neo-liberal creed she chose to embrace. The fact that all the major parties still follow an agenda based on that ideology and content (however disguised) is proof of its perniciousness and power and does indeed prove that the legacy of Thatcher still flourishes.

And the fact that in the 'aftermath' of Blairs victory one of the first few people he went to see was Thatcher. That the neo-liberal creed is firmly in place can be seen the way New Labour sees free market politics. When Blair attacks those on 'The Left' for demanding more public ownership/less privatisation he merely retorts that he isn't an ideologue. As if his strident defence of the free market and increased privatisation isn't ideological. Neo-liberalism is so entrenched that the defence of free-market ideals is no longer seen as ideological merely the norm.

 

[LLETSA]

Neo-liberalism is so entrenched that the defence of free-market ideals is no longer seen as ideological merely the norm.

Exactly. And those who make any kind of stand against it are depicted as somehow trying to resist the natural order.

 

[belboid]

Okay, two separate strands here.

First off, I think this discussion has got rather distracted from the initial point (in no small part my fault, I’m not trying to get away from anything), which was that Thatcher’s downfall was, and still something to be celebrated. It was achieved through working-class self-activity and solidarity, even if it was finally her side that chopped her head off, it was only to stop us doing so. That we did not/could not fully take advantage of that victory and push on with rolling back the gains she had made for her lot is, of course, tragic, but it does not negate the brilliance of her defeat in the first place. Not to agree is just to say ‘yeah well, capitalism still exists, so it all failed’. I am reminded of who always said was his great hero, Spartacus. Because what did he (Spartacus) actually achieve in the end? Nothing, he was strung up, the slave rebellion defeated, and life made absolutely no better for the millions of slaves who had never even been part of the revolt(of course the ones who were a part of it got an even worse end). By the logic of LLETSA etc, Marx was an idiot because Spartacus ultimately failed. But Marx was no idiot, and Spartacus was a hero.


Okay, to the specific points raised re Thatcher’s legacy – which would make an interesting thread in its own right, which may draw in more people (the vast majority of whom would no doubt think I am talking as much shit as you think I am doing) than this one this far, but anyway…..

Europe – again I say that the point is not whether Europe is good/bad, but whether her vision for it has been seen through. Overwhelmingly, it hasn’t. The Social Chapter is there, the French/German power bloc is still there, it has been expanded in such a way that she would detest. The point about Clark wasn’t that he had convinced people of his position (which I obviously accept he hasn’t) but that during the leadership election, even with him in it, it just wasn’t even an issue. She made it central, but it’s another bloody massive weight around there neck, and so it has been dropped from the serious agenda. Hardly a great legacy.

Re the family and social policy, I think hibee’s point veers close to becoming too determinist, to saying that what capital wants, capital gets, and any changes in society simply reflect the changing demands of capital. This kind of argument too, is not dissimilar to the ‘oh well capitalism survived, so…’ argument. Capital will make do with pretty much whatever kind of families exist, it doesn’t really care about sexuality or, about things like race etc, except to the extent that it can be used as a means of divide and rule. Obviously this isn’t true of all capitalists, hence Thatcher’s ‘involvement’. But, at the end of the day, her argument lost. In the short-mid term at least. Which is unlike in the USA where reactionary anti-abortion, anti-gay, women back to the home, policies are still put forward, and far more successfully than they were here.

LLETSA, again, seems not to have noticed that Thatcher was not the first to implement neo-liberal policies, despite several people mentioning it. She was not responsible for neo-liberalism, let‘s not give the fucker too much credit eh? It would have happened without her, under labour, the Liberals or the tories, she was merely the figurehead (albeit an extremely big head).

So, as has never been denied, neo-liberalism did ‘win’ and is today probably even stronger than it was when she went, but the actual legacy of her, the has been far, far weaker.

 

[hibee]

Re the family and social policy, I think hibee’s point veers close to becoming too determinist, to saying that what capital wants, capital gets, and any changes in society simply reflect the changing demands of capital. This kind of argument too, is not dissimilar to the ‘oh well capitalism survived, so…’ argument. Capital will make do with pretty much whatever kind of families exist, it doesn’t really care about sexuality or, about things like race etc, except to the extent that it can be used as a means of divide and rule. Obviously this isn’t true of all capitalists, hence Thatcher’s ‘involvement’. But, at the end of the day, her argument lost. In the short-mid term at least. Which is unlike in the USA where reactionary anti-abortion, anti-gay, women back to the home, policies are still put forward, and far more successfully than they were here.

.

I share your wariness about being determinist, but that isn't the basis on which I'm arguing; after all, other parts of europe managed to avoid the "new right revolution" (not that I'm holding up an increasingly fragile social democracy as something better). But my point is that as far as the serious ideological and financial backers of "Thatcherism" went, social conservatism was a tool in building an anti-social democratic coalition. People like Hayeck and Friedman were social liberals, and indeed a strand of today's tory party that was at the coalface of Thatcherism in the 1980s (Portillo, Duncan, Maude, Cameron etc) are now "on the left on social issues". Becuase for them the substantive battle - that of establishing the unquestioned primacy of capital over labour - has been won.

In America, where cultural issues are more politicised, the right has obvioulsy co-opted a conservative christian agenda that for all sorts of historical reasons has never taken root to the same extent here into its own coalition. Of course, there's nothing determined or set in stone about this - the new deal democrats of the 30s and 40s built on religious ideals too, interpreted differently (taking the side of the weak against the strong in biblical terms).

 

[hibee]

On a similar theme, the cultural difference between the US and here explains why Peter Stringfellow is an active tory and Hugh Hefner is an active democrat; both are exploitative capitalist cunts from the same pod, who for cultural reasons find themselves on either side of a mainstream "left right" divide that is increasingly irrelevant in substantive (ie economic) terms.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

When was the Republican-Democrat divide ever of the same nature as the Tory-Labour one?

 

[hibee]

When was the Republican-Democrat divide ever of the same nature as the Tory-Labour one?

never siad it was bud, think that was part of my point...

 

[belboid]

I share your wariness about being determinist, but that isn't the basis on which I'm arguing; after all, other parts of europe managed to avoid the "new right revolution" (not that I'm holding up an increasingly fragile social democracy as something better). But my point is that as far as the serious ideological and financial backers of "Thatcherism" went, social conservatism was a tool in building an anti-social democratic coalition. People like Hayeck and Friedman were social liberals, and indeed a strand of today's tory party that was at the coalface of Thatcherism in the 1980s (Portillo, Duncan, Maude, Cameron etc) are now "on the left on social issues". Becuase for them the substantive battle - that of establishing the unquestioned primacy of capital over labour - has been won.

but tyat does read rather like 'it was necessary for capuital then, but isn't now, and could even be divisive, so it changed'.

Which is economic determinism.

 

[hibee]

but tyat does read rather like 'it was necessary for capuital then, but isn't now, and could even be divisive, so it changed'.

Which is economic determinism.

Well no, becuase capital doesn't always get its way. I was talking about the priorities of capital, which is surely establishing its own primacy over labour. Building a coalition with social conservatives is surely a means to an end (indeed, the interests of capital are by no means uniform in terms of sometimes benefiting from social liberalism, as I've pointed out)

 

[belboid]

sure, i know what you meant by that, and I take your point. but why then did the situation change? Either it was due to the needs of capital (they still won) or it was because they never really won that part of the argument (we won) - i think it's the latter.

 

[LLETSA]

First off, I think this discussion has got rather distracted from the initial point (in no small part my fault, I’m not trying to get away from anything), which was that Thatcher’s downfall was, and still something to be celebrated. It was achieved through working-class self-activity and solidarity, even if it was finally her side that chopped her head off, it was only to stop us doing so. That we did not/could not fully take advantage of that victory and push on with rolling back the gains she had made for her lot is, of course, tragic, but it does not negate the brilliance of her defeat in the first place. Not to agree is just to say ‘yeah well, capitalism still exists, so it all failed’. I am reminded of who always said was his great hero, Spartacus. Because what did he (Spartacus) actually achieve in the end? Nothing, he was strung up, the slave rebellion defeated, and life made absolutely no better for the millions of slaves who had never even been part of the revolt(of course the ones who were a part of it got an even worse end). By the logic of LLETSA etc, Marx was an idiot because Spartacus ultimately failed. But Marx was no idiot, and Spartacus was a hero.

Don't you think you might be getting carried away here?

 

[Ryazan]

He seems to be having a funny turn.

 

[LLETSA]

LLETSA, again, seems not to have noticed that Thatcher was not the first to implement neo-liberal policies, despite several people mentioning it. She was not responsible for neo-liberalism, let‘s not give the fucker too much credit eh? It would have happened without her, under labour, the Liberals or the tories, she was merely the figurehead (albeit an extremely big head).

Beside the point. Hibee has already answered this point above. And I have already pointed out that she was a figurehead.

 

[LLETSA]

Re the family and social policy, I think hibee’s point veers close to becoming too determinist, to saying that what capital wants, capital gets, and any changes in society simply reflect the changing demands of capital. This kind of argument too, is not dissimilar to the ‘oh well capitalism survived, so…’ argument. Capital will make do with pretty much whatever kind of families exist, it doesn’t really care about sexuality or, about things like race etc, except to the extent that it can be used as a means of divide and rule. Obviously this isn’t true of all capitalists, hence Thatcher’s ‘involvement’. But, at the end of the day, her argument lost. In the short-mid term at least. Which is unlike in the USA where reactionary anti-abortion, anti-gay, women back to the home, policies are still put forward, and far more successfully than they were here.

Social conservatism is in retreat because of the forces unleashed by the triumph of neo-liberal economics. Hence the rush by nearly all Tory leaders, on the advice of party strategists, to embrace social liberalism.

Do Thatcher and her big business cronies look all that bothered?

 

[belboid]

Don't you think you might be getting carried away here?

no, I think you're dodging the point cos you realise you were talking shit in the first place.

 

[belboid]

Social conservatism is in retreat because of the forces unleashed by the triumph of neo-liberal economics. Hence the rush by nearly all Tory leaders, on the advice of party strategists, to embrace social liberalism.

Do Thatcher and her big business cronies look all that bothered?

that's almost a point of your very own, rather htan one cribbed off chuck or hibee, well done!

shame it doesn't really make sense, no reasn given why B should follow A, you seem to have difficulty accepting it was even possibe we could have won something in the last couple of decades

 

[LLETSA]

that's almost a point of your very own, rather htan one cribbed off chuck or hibee, well done!

shame it doesn't really make sense, no reasn given why B should follow A, you seem to have difficulty accepting it was even possibe we could have won something in the last couple of decades

It should be obvious to all but the most retrograde leftie how the second point follows the first. As an example, you can probably still find on the Guardian website an article by Damien Green, where he argues that for the Tories to be seen a socially conservative would marginalise them in today's society.

And talking about B following A, I don't see what you're last point has to do with the post of mine you seem to be replying to. But there you go.

You seem, by the way, to have some kind of psychological need to paint the picture for working class politics brighter than it actually is.

 

[hibee]

sure, i know what you meant by that, and I take your point. but why then did the situation change? Either it was due to the needs of capital (they still won) or it was because they never really won that part of the argument (we won) - i think it's the latter.

LLETSA has answered this point for me. The triumph of capital has been so complete, in this country at least, that its proponents don't need to build coalitions with social conservatives (who in the west of Scotland, where I am from, have tended to align themselves with the Labour party - there is nothing to say they will inevitably link up with the free market right, and there is much reason for Mary Whitehouse types to be suspicious of the market).

I share your suspicion of determinism. But for the people behind the new right revolution, social conservatism was generally either second order or a coalition-building means to an end (see how the likes of Edward Leigh are now fairly marginal figures in today's conservative party).

 

[belboid]

It should be obvious to all but the most retrograde leftie how the second point follows the first.

aah, the traditional answer of those who don't have a clue.

As an example, you can probably still find on the Guardian website an article by Damien Green, where he argues that for the Tories to be seen a socially conservative would marginalise them in today's society.

can't find it (not sure how to search their site by author), but the one line summary posted here doesn't make it sound like it supports ytour view particularly, if they changed because it was unpopular these daysm, then that supports my view.

You seem, by the way, to have some kind of psychological need to paint the picture for working class politics brighter than it actually is.

well done, you took my point and turned it around to say the opposite! you have been paying attention in 'Argument 101'. Shame it's still a rubbish pointm, but never mind.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

I see Geoffey Archers intention to rejoin the Tories has scuppered the launch of 'New' Tories ! Anyone connected to Thatcher is an absolute vote loser.

 

[LLETSA]

aah, the traditional answer of those who don't have a clue.


can't find it (not sure how to search their site by author), but the one line summary posted here doesn't make it sound like it supports ytour view particularly, if they changed because it was unpopular these daysm, then that supports my view.



well done, you took my point and turned it around to say the opposite! you have been paying attention in 'Argument 101'. Shame it's still a rubbish pointm, but never mind.

You are the one who hasn't been paying attention to the argument, Belboid. It's one of the pitfalls of dogmatism.

Tory strategists are increasingly coming to reject social conservatism not primarily because they are rejecting what is popularly known as Thatcherism, but because the economic forces that Thatcherism unleashed have undermined the social base for what remained of traditional conservative values.

The point, as far as this argument is concerned, being that Thatcher's legacy continues to thrive. It was always primarilly concerned with economics; that she and her successors seem little concerned with the ditcching of social conservatism she espoused (mostly half-heartedly), syas it all. Social conservatism was merely tactical, as others have pointed out; the economic doctrines were strategic, and the measure of their success is that they reign unchallenged as the new orthodoxy.

 

[belboid]

wey hey! finally we have something approaching a choerent point.

it's still bollocks tho. economic forces haven't made more people gay, or accepting of being gay.

but if you want to be an econnomic determinist and define everything by how her economic policies are still overwhelmingly adhered too, far enough I suppose.

 

[LLETSA]

wey hey! finally we have something approaching a choerent point.

it's still bollocks tho. economic forces haven't made more people gay, or accepting of being gay.

but if you want to be an econnomic determinist and define everything by how her economic policies are still overwhelmingly adhered too, far enough I suppose.

Are you deliberately missing the point?

The point being not that 'economic forces make people gay, or accepting of being gay', but that, such was the extent of the victory of capital, that it can adapt to social change that occurs independently of it. Hence, the main party of capital can afford to largely ditch the social conservatism with which it used to be associated by many (although it will probably bring it out to do a twirl now and again if it is deemed advantageous), and talk about the need to 'relate to society as it really is' and suchlike, if it is ever going to be able to win enough support to regain office. It can adapt in this way because it can easily absorb those changes in society traditionally associated with the liberal left. Contrary to what a section of the far-left assumed from the seventies onwards, the 'social movements' agenda it embraced, partly as an unconscious admission that it was failing to challenge capitalism economically, made not a dent in capitalist hegemony. Anti-racism, anti-homophobia etc, etc have become so mainstream that they are no longer even associated with radicalism of any kind. The gay pride carnival in Manchester, for instance, receives sponsorship from big business. The free market, meanwhile, is more secure-and expansionist-than it has been for a century or more. It is no accident that many of those at the forefront of the social movements of the past few decades are sitting pretty in lucrative careers bulit on the back of those movements; some of them don't even see the need to pretend that they are opposed to the capitalist system anymore.

Anyway, isn't it about time you started putting some coherent arguments yourself? You'll be looking more Belvoid than Belboid if you're not careful.

 

[hibee]

it's still bollocks tho. economic forces haven't made more people gay, or accepting of being gay.

You don't think that economic forces might have made people who might have been homophobic a generation ago wake up to the fact that "accepting" the pink pound could be profitable for them?

The broader reasons why homosexuality has become more acceptable are obviously more complex, but you don't have to be GA Cohen to buy into the above example.