What the hell does left-wing or right-wing mean in 2012?

[Saintandy666]

Left wing and Right wing is just a measurement of economic policy and most people don't seem to understand this. They seem to associate libertarianism with left wing and authoritarianism with right wing which I do not understand given that is not always the case at all.

 

Supposedly post-modernism has made such labels obsolete, but post-modernism is a tonne of wishy washy bullcrap so I'd say it's still relevant, but in this country? I don't know... both our main parties have triangulated so much they've ended up pretty much the same on all policies, though that is showing signs of change now.

[Saintandy666]

Left Wing - Nationalise. Nanny State.

Right Wing - Privatise. Minimise the State.

 

That's a gross simplification and a bit biased as well.

[pap]

Left wing and Right wing is just a measurement of economic policy and most people don't seem to understand this. They seem to associate libertarianism with left wing and authoritarianism with right wing which I do not understand given that is not always the case at all.

 

I suspect that is an import from American shores, where the term "liberal" is mis-applied almost continuously.

[Verbal]

I suspect that is an import from American shores, where the term "liberal" is mis-applied almost continuously.

 

I doubt it's from America. The 'libertarian right' is basically the Tea Party, whereas 'libertarian left' is (to many Americans) oxymoronic. "Liberal' in the US is a widespread term of abuse (and widely misunderstood, as you say) - so much so that left-wing Democrats avoid describing themselves in such terms.

[pap]

I doubt it's from America. The 'libertarian right' is basically the Tea Party, whereas 'libertarian left' is (to many Americans) oxymoronic. "Liberal' in the US is a widespread term of abuse (and widely misunderstood, as you say) - so much so that left-wing Democrats avoid describing themselves in such terms.

 

Gotta feel sorry for the American left. Can't call themselves Liberal, and given that they live in a country which asks each and every visitor if he or she has ever been a member of the Communist party, it'd seem that they have very labels left to claim

[Minty]

This subject really annoys me. The only way we seem to be able to cope in life these days is to label people and pitch them against each other.

 

It's all about headline-grabbing and statement-making. To get to real substance of opinion and discussion means you need to go a lot deeper but a lot of people are too thick or lazy to do so.

 

I've had some great discussions with friends and colleagues about specific political issues where we discuss each thing on its own merits and come to independent conclusions, which are not based on pre-empted categorisations.

 

I know that I am considered a leftie, but I have found myself agreeing and endorsing so-called 'right wing' views on many subjects. There are some very reasonable and intelligent posters on here for example, but as soon as certain people come along to start throwing labels around and playing the man rather than the ball, it all becomes quite tedious.

[saintbletch]

What do you think he would have said to you if you asked him in the late seventies about people who have two houses?

 

For me it is all about the pigs in animal farm preaching one thing and then living in Jone's house.

 

OK. I see where your views come from.

 

So, to paraphrase you, you actually don't see hypocrisy in being a millionaire and believing that socialism should be about compassion.

 

If that's the case then we have no argument. I just couldn't see how your prejudices about socialists generating wealth related to my post.

 

Instead, you can see hypocrisy in having held extreme views as a younger man about certain behaviour and then potentially being shown to exhibit that behaviour later in life.Yep, I can see the potential contradiction there.

 

But to torture your Animal Farm analogy a little further, I always saw Bragg as Boxer, back from the dead, a new set of tack, and having two stables but looking into the room at the pigs not in the room looking out.

[Dangerous Albert]

This subject really annoys me. The only way we seem to be able to cope in life these days is to label people and pitch them against each other.

 

It's all about headline-grabbing and statement-making. To get to real substance of opinion and discussion means you need to go a lot deeper but a lot of people are too thick or lazy to do so.

 

I've had some great discussions with friends and colleagues about specific political issues where we discuss each thing on its own merits and come to independent conclusions, which are not based on pre-empted categorisations.

 

I know that I am considered a leftie, but I have found myself agreeing and endorsing so-called 'right wing' views on many subjects. There are some very reasonable and intelligent posters on here for example, but as soon as certain people come along to start throwing labels around and playing the man rather than the ball, it all becomes quite tedious.

 

 

Good summary

[pap]

This subject really annoys me. The only way we seem to be able to cope in life these days is to label people and pitch them against each other.

 

It's all about headline-grabbing and statement-making. To get to real substance of opinion and discussion means you need to go a lot deeper but a lot of people are too thick or lazy to do so.

 

I've had some great discussions with friends and colleagues about specific political issues where we discuss each thing on its own merits and come to independent conclusions, which are not based on pre-empted categorisations.

 

I know that I am considered a leftie, but I have found myself agreeing and endorsing so-called 'right wing' views on many subjects. There are some very reasonable and intelligent posters on here for example, but as soon as certain people come along to start throwing labels around and playing the man rather than the ball, it all becomes quite tedious.

 

Good post highlighting the dangers of "package beliefs", which is something that has already reared its head here ( "if you are left wing you must support the release of Lockerbie bombers", etc ).

 

In a sense, that's why I've never been interested in joining a political party. I'm well aware that all three parties are broad churches, but through the party-whip system and the need to stay "on message", all three political parties present a very small fraction of their wider political belief as all they believe. It's not surprising that the public sees politics in the same packages that they're given.

 

As you point out, most of it is crap. Chris Rock perhaps sums it up most eloquently:-

 

"Everybody's so busy wanting to be down with the gang. "I'm conservative", "I'm liberal", "I'm conservative". Bullsh*t! Be a f*cking person! Lis-ten! Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing, okay? I've got some sh*t I'm conservative about, I've got some sh*t I'm liberal about. Crime, I'm conservative. Prostitution, I'm liberal!"

[Verbal]

OK. I see where your views come from.

 

So, to paraphrase you, you actually don't see hypocrisy in being a millionaire and believing that socialism should be about compassion.

 

If that's the case then we have no argument. I just couldn't see how your prejudices about socialists generating wealth related to my post.

 

Instead, you can see hypocrisy in having held extreme views as a younger man about certain behaviour and then potentially being shown to exhibit that behaviour later in life.Yep, I can see the potential contradiction there.

 

But to torture your Animal Farm analogy a little further, I always saw Bragg as Boxer, back from the dead, a new set of tack, and having two stables but looking into the room at the pigs not in the room looking out.

 

Or to put it another way, our dear Sergei thinks there is a 1:1 relationship between economic status and class interest. So if you're rich, you're a right wing swivel-eyed...(I want to say gimp, but you know what I mean).

 

By the same token, and not to be a 'hypocrite', he should argue that if you're poor, you should be a red-flag-waving communist.

 

Somehow, there has been a long history of wealthy 'hypocrites' - like Robert Owen, to take just one example. Owen was a successful mill owner and social reformer whose ideas about working class communities revolutionised philanthropic thinking, and created a branch of left-wing thought known as 'Utopian Socialism'. Owen's ideas were famously successful - both in terms of producing more equitable communities in places like New Lanark, and in purely financial terms. Owen was, in other words, a remarkably effective capitalist whose personal wealth (created, as he was the first to admit, by those who worked for him) was ploughed back into improving the housing and factory conditions of his employees.

 

Some hypocrite.

Edited 27 February, 2012 by Verbal

[Colinjb]

That's a gross simplification and a bit biased as well.

 

You think.

[pap]

Or to put it another way, our dear Sergei thinks there is a 1:1 relationship between economic status and class interest. So if you're rich, you're a right wing swivel-eyed...(I want to say gimp, but you know what I mean).

 

By the same token, and not to be a 'hypocrite', he should argue that if you're poor, you should be a red-flag-waving communist.

 

Somehow, there has been a long history of wealthy 'hypocrites' - like Robert Owen, to take just one example. Owen was a successful mill owner and social reformer whose ideas about working class communities revolutionised philanthropic thinking, and created a branch of left-wing thought known as 'Utopian Socialism'. Owen's ideas were famously successful - both in terms of producing more equitable communities in places like New Lanark, and in purely financial terms. Owen was,in other words, a remarkable effective capitalist whose personal wealth (created, as he was the first to admit, by those who worked for him) was ploughed back into improving the housing and factory conditions of his employees.

 

Some hypocrite.

 

Can I add Joseph Williamson, a Liverpool-based tycoon? He mysteriously employed a ton of poor people, some destitute after returning from the Napoleonic wars. He tasked them with building a network of tunnels, the purpose of which have never been fully established.

 

When asked why the tunnels were built, Williamson's explanation was:-

 

"all received a weekly wage and were thus enabled to enjoy the blessing of charity without the attendant curse of stifled self respect"

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Nice one.

 

Sergei - I'd like to hear your views on Bill Gates. He is a multi-billionaire and spends quite a bit of his dough on the needy.

 

Sorry Pap I did not see your question.

 

I admire Bill Gates a great deal, he has built up a massive global business and enriched the lives of thousands of his employees on the way. Having created the wealth, in the great tradition of industrialists in years gone by, he has decided to put something back into the world which made him his fortune. He is a classic example of how capitalism can take people out of poverty and brings about progress.

 

Multi millionaire Billy Bragg marketed himself as an anti-capitalist rebel rouser, flying the Red Flag and waging his class warfare from his large country house in the rolling hills of Dorset. I find that rather hypocritical.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Or to put it another way, our dear Sergei thinks there is a 1:1 relationship between economic status and class interest. So if you're rich, you're a right wing swivel-eyed...(I want to say gimp, but you know what I mean).

 

By the same token, and not to be a 'hypocrite', he should argue that if you're poor, you should be a red-flag-waving communist.

 

Somehow, there has been a long history of wealthy 'hypocrites' - like Robert Owen, to take just one example. Owen was a successful mill owner and social reformer whose ideas about working class communities revolutionised philanthropic thinking, and created a branch of left-wing thought known as 'Utopian Socialism'. Owen's ideas were famously successful - both in terms of producing more equitable communities in places like New Lanark, and in purely financial terms. Owen was, in other words, a remarkably effective capitalist whose personal wealth (created, as he was the first to admit, by those who worked for him) was ploughed back into improving the housing and factory conditions of his employees.

 

Some hypocrite.

 

Where we seem to differ is that I believe you have to create wealth to enrich people's lives. You assume that compassion is exclusive to the left which is utter rubbish.

[Verbal]

Where we seem to differ is that I believe you have to create wealth to enrich people's lives. You assume that compassion is exclusive to the left which is utter rubbish.

 

What a messy jumble of thoughts, Sergei. This recalls an earlier thread, but let's leave that for now. Owen's point was that the 'wealth creators' were the employers AND employees. Where 'compassion' comes into this I have no idea. In Owen's case and beliefs, it's more to do with issue of equity and social justice.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

What a messy jumble of thoughts, Sergei. This recalls an earlier thread, but let's leave that for now. Owen's point was that the 'wealth creators' were the employers AND employees. Where 'compassion' comes into this I have no idea. In Owen's case and beliefs, it's more to do with issue of equity and social justice.

 

'This recalls an earlier thread but let's leave that for now'. Try to make sense Verbal.

 

As regards a 'messy jumble of thoughts' - firstly there are just two points both very clear. I will have to try again; you can be right of centre and believe in compassion and social justice.

[Verbal]

'This recalls an earlier thread but let's leave that for now'. Try to make sense Verbal.

 

As regards a 'messy jumble of thoughts' - firstly there are just two points both very clear. I will have to try again; you can be right of centre and believe in compassion and social justice.

 

No you can't - by your argument, that is. If you're left of centre and wealthy, that's hypocritical, so you say. So by the same argument, if you're right of centre you have to be an exploitative, in-it-for-yourself cretin. And less of the 'compassion' - Owen was right when he argued that the wealth creators were employers and employees alike. Compassion doesn't come into it.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

No you can't - by your argument, that is. If you're left of centre and wealthy, that's hypocritical, so you say. So by the same argument, if you're right of centre you have to be an exploitative, in-it-for-yourself cretin. And less of the 'compassion' - Owen was right when he argued that the wealth creators were employers and employees alike. Compassion doesn't come into it.

 

Well to put it more clearly or another way Verbal. Many of us on the right believe that you have to have an effective capitalist system to raise people's living standards and to deliver social justice. No it won't be perfect but we don't want to end up like Belarus do we where only the communist party officials enjoy the trappings of affluence.

 

Billy Bragg is a hypocrite because he commutes to his class war battleground from the luxury of his big house in Dorset. I am surprised you cannot see why he might be vulnerable to that accusation.

[pap]

Well to put it more clearly or another way Verbal. Many of us on the right believe that you have to have an effective capitalist system to raise people's living standards and to deliver social justice. No it won't be perfect but we don't want to end up like Belarus do we where only the communist party officials enjoy the trappings of affluence.

 

Billy Bragg is a hypocrite because he commutes to his class war battleground from the luxury of his big house in Dorset. I am surprised you cannot see why he might be vulnerable to that accusation.

 

Truly amuzing (not a spelling mistake - a spicy fusion of amazing and amusing inspired by Sergei's post).

 

Anyway, where to start? I suppose that "an effective capitalist system" is as good a place as any. Which countries would you say enjoy an effective capitalist system? You can't really point to the US or the EU. We're up to our ears in debt. That's like someone saying "I really manage my money well, but I'm 400K in debt".

 

You've picked one specific example of the left-wing turning to the dark side, but there are innumerable examples of dysfunctional capitalist societies to be had. Furthermore, it is not as if left-wing states where the "trappings of affluence" are in relatively short supply. I know that the average Brit has a much better standard of living than the average Belarusian, but I also know that the average Brit has a much worse standard of living than the average banker. There are gross inequalities of wealth in both societies.

 

I'm also intrigued with the whole Billy Bragg angle. What would he have to do to regain Sergei's respect? Move into a terrace in Sh*tsville?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Not sure it is that amusing is it Pap.

 

I am surprised that you think there is one country with a model that works perfectly. For two comparable models that highlight the gap between left and right - North and South Korea.

 

Not sure where you are going with the banker bit - there are lots of people who have done well finacially other than bankers.

 

Being called a hypocrite is not exactly uncommon for people who delve in politics. Generally the left are involved in financial scandals and the right sex ones. The left preach about greed and the right about morals so the label hypocrite is quite common. I am pleased that I will be able to read about them in the Sun on Sunday again.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Large State vs Small State mentality?

 

I think that is arguably the best definition in 2012.

[trousers]

I think that is arguably the best definition in 2012.

 

Arguably? I thought it was the best statement on this thread thus far without a shadow of doubt.

[Minty]

Being called a hypocrite is not exactly uncommon for people who delve in politics. Generally the left are involved in financial scandals and the right sex ones. The left preach about greed and the right about morals so the label hypocrite is quite common. I am pleased that I will be able to read about them in the Sun on Sunday again.

This is another interesting offshoot of this debate IMO.

 

No one should PREACH anything. Preaching has no place in modern debate and opinion forming IMO. We can share our opinions and back it up with research and examples and theories, but to preach implies that we know what is right and what is wrong. There are so many variables in life, let along some of the key aspects of the 'left'/'right' debate, that no one solution is ever right or wrong for any of the issues we debate.

 

We have all been hypocrites in our lives at some point and to some degree. Because we're human. We get stuff wrong, we lie, we get defensive and we do hypocritical things. We are not perfect, we never will be. And recognising that is a major starting point for any progress to be made IMO. That's why, although they have done many things I don't agree with, I was actually relatively pleased to see the coalition in place because it forced two parties with differing opinions on a wide range of subjects to (hopefully) come to decide policy based on debates about the subject at hand and not just the individual party line.

 

That was my hope. I'm not sure it's actually happened, but it has been interesting viewing.

 

But back to my point. Not actually living up to your moral/ethical/economic ideals does not automatically make you a hypocrite. When you operate within a system that is at odds with your ideals, you have to sometimes engage with the system to try and change or influence it. Ideally, the social enterprise business that my wife and I run would be a workers co-operative, but in order to establish it, we have done so initially as a Ltd company, with sole control over the company. It is still a 'non-profit' company, governed by the custom Articles we put together, with a view to changing in the future, once we have set it up as we would like.

 

Does that make us hypocrites? Perhaps, but to establish it in the marketplace we find ourselves at present, we believe it is the best way to go.

 

I do agree that there are those in the public eye whose lifestyle and ethics are often at hypocritical odds with each other, and that is a far easier call to make. Billy Bragg is not a bad example IMO, but then again I'm not sure ever truly know the full extent of what people do with their own money, and ultimately it is their own conscience that they have to be able to appease.

 

Finally, on the capitalism side of things, I for one don't have a problem with capitalism as such, however it is the profits of that capitalism that I personally believe cause the problems. If it were distributed more widely and went to support the people, places which helped create the profit, then it becomes a far more sustainable means. As it stands, I believe the transfer of such large profits to such a small % of society, increasing the gap between rich and poor, will actually only create more problems and quite possibly large social unrest in the future.

[Viking Warrior]

Left wing open toed sandals cords with patches on . Right wing pinstriped suits and bowler hats

[Verbal]

Well to put it more clearly or another way Verbal. Many of us on the right believe that you have to have an effective capitalist system to raise people's living standards and to deliver social justice. No it won't be perfect but we don't want to end up like Belarus do we where only the communist party officials enjoy the trappings of affluence.

 

Billy Bragg is a hypocrite because he commutes to his class war battleground from the luxury of his big house in Dorset. I am surprised you cannot see why he might be vulnerable to that accusation.

 

You can only apply the label hypocrite to Bragg if (a) you believe that there is a 1:1 relationship between personal wealth and class interests (ask yourself what he 'should' do if he were not a 'hypocrite'); and (b) Bragg has argued for some sort of communistic vision of society in which his wealth would be denied to him. I don't know for sure whether he's done either recently, but I'd characterise his politics as progressive-left, not Stalinist, forced-labour-camp 'Socialism in One State'.

 

As for your point about capitalism delivering social justice, this is a piece of wishful thinking based upon an illegitimate extension of Adam Smith's ideas about 'equilibrium' (ideas which even Smith felt were wrong).

 

With the exception of a few remarkable historical figures like Robert Owen, social justice has been delivered by some part or other of the state, precisely because it cannot be delivered without partial redistribution from one set of wealth creators who cornered more than they earned to those wealth creators who were left with less. Living standards have been raised by a combination of welfare-state intervention and economic growth - and even the latter is dependent on a mixture of stimuli from the state and private sector.

[Saintandy666]

lockerbie terrorist.

 

Left wing - ah poor man, he is ill, lets let him go home...live and let live

 

right wing - keep him locked up, the terrorist killed hundreds of people, he will get medical attention inside and justice will be served at the same time. he was found guilty after all

 

So please explain to me, how ideologically speaking those two views would be the default view of those who are so called left wing and right wing?

[dubai_phil]

What an interesting thread Pap. Shame I had to go do some work for a change all day.

 

Left Wing & Right Wing. D_P can very rarely post about "Politics" because I am so far removed from the day to day nip tuck & context, but living under a "Nasty Authroitarian Regime" Being deprived of Democracy" does give a slightly Cynical view of The Political Classes.

 

One lesson I think that can be learnt and discussed TODAY is the simple fact that it really seems that "The Political Class" in the UK IN THE MAIN interested in only ONE thing. Staying in the Gravy Train.

 

Politics is such a "Business" these days that Left or Right has become so blurred. Those in Parliament ONLY care "What THEIR voters think" so, let's face it you will never get an EDF candidate getting voted in in Brixton, in the same way you could never get a Trotskie voted in Salisbury. This is the first failing of "The current Democratic system". IF you want to get into Parliament you have to do what Blair did and "Sell your soul" for the Votes in the Constituency that you get assigned to. To get assigned you have to sell your soul to the Selection Committee.

 

How can you hold on to deep Left OR Right wing views when you go for a Job Interview? You HAVE to end up (like Red Ken Livingstone) turning "Populist"

 

How can "Caring for the less fortunate in Society" have been allowed to become "bring Society down to the level of the less fortunate"? How can Liberalisation of the Capitalist System" have become "get the Tax Payer to pay us Bonuses for failure anyway"?

 

How can you TODAY be "Left Wing" when the Bastion of "Left Wing Implementation" is one of the most corrupt "Capitalist" societies on earth having failed at Socialism? Or when one of the few remaining "Marxist Maoist" Governments promotes blatant "State Capitalism & Cronyism as China does?

 

The Cyninc in me has learnt that in reality there is only one mantra for "Social Awareness" - that is you first, then your family, then your friends and then your Community. There is only one mantra for Capitalism Me First, then MY family, then MY friends and then MY community. (Note Community means Neighbours, Employees and their family & friends). It doesn NOT mean some "Pseudo Multi-National Chairty with a CEO earning a fortune or some stupid Aid programme that thinks giving Buses GPS systems in the global home of IT Software (Bangalore) is a good use of Public Funds)

 

In BOTH these mantras IF something is left over then it will be stolen or ripped off by someone else..

 

Me? I've given up on Politics, the system we had has screwed the World, and it has screwed all but 1% of the population.

 

The SOONER a new way emerges the better. I had a a vote for 16 years before I came here. It did feck all to change the world.

 

Should we REALLY in 2012 be relying on manuals and labels written in the early 1900's?

 

Or should we just say

 

Economy First, (ie give us the money). Safety and Security Second (let us not live in fear), Education Third (Let our Children be BETTER than us but NOT be brainwashed by "Political views" or the "opinion" of one teacher), Community Fourth (Let us live in a place where everyone WANTS to be and can aspire to better things - not screwed by suits or .....)

 

Ah sod it. That is why I never post on Politics. Look at the adventures of FF to see what happens when you hold to your beliefs instead of reality.

 

The world is Real. Politicians use labels the same way that Proctor & Gamble/McDonalds use them - Marketing - get your votes and your money.

 

Ignore the labels and vote for people that actually DO SOMETHING.

 

 

 

This rant was brought to you by Bacardi. You know it makes sens

Edited 27 February, 2012 by dubai_phil

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

You can only apply the label hypocrite to Bragg if (a) you believe that there is a 1:1 relationship between personal wealth and class interests (ask yourself what he 'should' do if he were not a 'hypocrite'); and (b) Bragg has argued for some sort of communistic vision of society in which his wealth would be denied to him. I don't know for sure whether he's done either recently, but I'd characterise his politics as progressive-left, not Stalinist, forced-labour-camp 'Socialism in One State'.

 

As for your point about capitalism delivering social justice, this is a piece of wishful thinking based upon an illegitimate extension of Adam Smith's ideas about 'equilibrium' (ideas which even Smith felt were wrong).

 

With the exception of a few remarkable historical figures like Robert Owen, social justice has been delivered by some part or other of the state, precisely because it cannot be delivered without partial redistribution from one set of wealth creators who cornered more than they earned to those wealth creators who were left with less. Living standards have been raised by a combination of welfare-state intervention and economic growth - and even the latter is dependent on a mixture of stimuli from the state and private sector.

 

Billy Bragg, the anti capitalist, with two houses. I would suggest that this dilutes his message a little bit.

 

Providing good housing, schools and medical care for your employees was pretty widespread particularly among the Quakers. I know of somebody who set up factories in China but unlike many gave them a good wage, built them houses, educated their children and gave them medical care. As a result everybody wanted to work for him and he was well respected in the area. He then got the best and most motivated workforce and prospered.

 

Living standards can only really go up with economic growth. Welfare intervention without growth causes debt and that is where we are today - living standards are consequently dropping.

[Saintandy666]

Billy Bragg, the anti capitalist, with two houses. I would suggest that this dilutes his message a little bit.

 

Providing good housing, schools and medical care for your employees was pretty widespread particularly among the Quakers. I know of somebody who set up factories in China but unlike many gave them a good wage, built them houses, educated their children and gave them medical care. As a result everybody wanted to work for him and he was well respected in the area. He then got the best and most motivated workforce and prospered.

 

Living standards can only really go up with economic growth. Welfare intervention without growth causes debt and that is where we are today - living standards are consequently dropping.

 

Socialism has moved far beyond ownership of property and industry these days. It's more about fair redistribution and decent public services funded by a decent progressive tax system.

[View From The Top]

Billy Bragg, the anti capitalist, with two houses. I would suggest that this dilutes his message a little bit.

 

Bragg isn't, nor has he ever been, anti-capitalist just against the excesses of capitalism and the expense of the ordinary working man.

 

Personally I'm happy with that message and it's one I subscribe too myself despite living a very middle class, capitalist life.

 

Bought my 1st Bragg LP off the man himself in Soton precinct.

[View From The Top]

Socialism has moved far beyond ownership of property and industry these days. It's more about fair redistribution and decent public services funded by a decent progressive tax system.

 

Thank fu ck someone understands.

[Thedelldays]

easy answer to the OP

 

verbal/dune

 

the exact opposite

[Jonnyboy]

Billy Bragg, the anti capitalist, with two houses. I would suggest that this dilutes his message a little bit.

 

Providing good housing, schools and medical care for your employees was pretty widespread particularly among the Quakers. I know of somebody who set up factories in China but unlike many gave them a good wage, built them houses, educated their children and gave them medical care. As a result everybody wanted to work for him and he was well respected in the area. He then got the best and most motivated workforce and prospered.

 

Living standards can only really go up with economic growth. Welfare intervention without growth causes debt and that is where we are today - living standards are consequently dropping.

 

What a load of shyte, go back to The Sun on Sunday.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Bragg isn't, nor has he ever been, anti-capitalist just against the excesses of capitalism and the expense of the ordinary working man.

 

Personally I'm happy with that message and it's one I subscribe too myself despite living a very middle class, capitalist life.

 

Bought my 1st Bragg LP off the man himself in Soton precinct.

 

He did do the rounds of the occupy anti capatalist sites.

[Saintandy666]

He did do the rounds of the occupy anti capatalist sites.

 

Occupy aren't anti-capitalism. That is how some publications wished to present them, but again it's just a general misunderstanding. Socialism has moved on, people don't seem to understand it.

 

Ian Hislop put it well on HIGNFY on some peoples attitude to the occupy movement -

 

"You don't have to want to return to a barter system in the stone age to complain about the way the finacial crisis effected large numbers of people in the world, do you! Even if you're having a cup of coffee and you've got a tent!"

What occupy wanted was reform of capitalism, not abolishing it. They weren't anti-capitalism at all.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Occupy aren't anti-capitalism. That is how some publications wished to present them, but again it's just a general misunderstanding. Socialism has moved on, people don't seem to understand it.

 

Ian Hislop put it well on HIGNFY on some peoples attitude to the occupy movement -

 

"You don't have to want to return to a barter system in the stone age to complain about the way the finacial crisis effected large numbers of people in the world, do you! Even if you're having a cup of coffee and you've got a tent!"

What occupy wanted was reform of capitalism, not abolishing it. They weren't anti-capitalism at all.

 

I am not sure that their message was particularly coherant. I would have made the likes of Fred Goodwin, who sacked 18,000 workers before the crisis and the caused another 20,000 to lose their jobs answer for their crimes. In China they would probably have hung him.

[Saintandy666]

I am not sure that their message was particularly coherant. I would have made the likes of Fred Goodwin, who sacked 18,000 workers before the crisis and the caused another 20,000 to lose their jobs answer for their crimes. In China they would probably have hung him.

 

Oh yes, the Occupy movement turned into a disaster of organisation and got distracted. In the UK, for example in fighting the Church rather than the city.

[aintforever]

I don't like the whole 'left wing' 'right wing' label thing. Some of my views would be considered left wing but just as many right wing.

 

People assume that if you detest the greed of today's f*cked up capitalist system you automatically want to hand out millions in benefits to scroungers. I hate benefit cheats as much as bankers. I agree with many green party policies, yet also agree with typical right wing views on immigrants and law and order. The label left or right is meaningless to me.

[View From The Top]

He did do the rounds of the occupy anti capatalist sites.

 

You do know Occupy weren't/aren't anti-capitalist don't you, merely wanting a reform of the capitalist system?

 

*It would appear that's already been pointed out.

[saintbletch]

Bragg isn't, nor has he ever been, anti-capitalist just against the excesses of capitalism and the expense of the ordinary working man.

 

Personally I'm happy with that message and it's one I subscribe too myself despite living a very middle class, capitalist life.

 

Bought my 1st Bragg LP off the man himself in Soton precinct.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself View From The Top.

 

Personally, I'm not sure it's about the wealth that one amasses in one's life but perhaps more about how one got it and what one does with it. Surely?

 

Not wanting to hijack this thread and turn it into a Bragg love-in but...we probably had the same albums at the same time VFTT.

 

I have the cassette of Life's a Riot with Spy Versus Spy which was recorded on one side only. On the other side was an invitation to "Bootleg the Bragg - Confuse the Enemy". He actively encouraged bootlegging of his own gigs.

 

I have other LPs that have "Pay no more than.£....for this record" actually built into the design on the front to limit the amount anyone should pay for his albums.

 

I've attended benefit gigs for which he gave his own time freely.

 

His "Capitalism is Killing Music" slogan was the closest he came to actually being anti-capitalist but that was more about a witty antidote to the "Home Taping is Killing Music" music industry campaign.

 

I think if you're as active as he is (was) over such a long period of time and own the sole rights to the majority of your work, then you're going to end up wealthy. That he has amassed a fortune and has two homes must be an inconvenience and a something of a stick that people will use to beat him with. Also his involvement in the campaign to ensure that musicians got a fair deal from music downloads also made him appear keen to protect his income.

 

I feel that he's done his bit overall, and the message was always more important than the money. But I'd freely acknowledge that I'm also probably too much of fan to see it any other way.