Karl Marx spoke of the 'vast decaying moth-eaten brocade of religion (or was it the church?)' because it was an institution underpinned by an ideology that had become meaningless in a modern materialist world. Today that moth eaten brocade would appear to be the lengthy explanations from socialists who start their analysis with the declaration that 'the system is broken' and 'we need transformative change'. In Marx's time Capitalism was the enemy, now it's Neoliberalism.
But has any political commentator ever been elected to public office? Because once you have you discover just how hard it is to realise change. The default of socialists in that situation is usually to blame 'the leadership' of their parties and try to persuade disappointed people around them to elevate them. But as Corbyn found to his cost the most coherent theory on the unfairness of Capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to its overthrow.
The basic economic analysis in this is similar to that offered by the American thinker Michael Lind in a recent talk at Policy Exchange. I’ve written today about what the implications are of this line of thinking for the forthcoming industrial strategy
The basic economic analysis in this is similar to that offered by the American thinker Michael Lind in a recent talk at Policy Exchange. I’ve written today about what the implications are of this line of thinking for the forthcoming industrial strategy
The problem for the Left is that it has become isolated from the lived experience of working people (something that was acutely obvious to George Orwell even in the 1930's). Even the concept of 'neoliberalism' needs a lengthy explanation for someone who would prefer a 'four ale bar'.
The Black and White Minstrels (where white men wore make up to mimic grotesque stereotypes of black men) on TV was acceptable in the 1970's. But now this 'blackface' is rightly regarded as completly unacceptable. The lived experience of black people was respected and it's unlikely that even the extreme Right wouldn't dare champion it's return.
The lobby for Feminism is unfortunately, so far, less powerful than the forces driving Black Lives Matter. But nowadays a man can claim to be a women (in some cases without even presenting as one) and demand to be accepted by women in the spaces reserved for their protection.
For every socialist who considers the masses need educating on the topic of 'trans rights' there are probably 100,000 who are shocked to see a male bodied boxer punch a women in the ring or failed male athletes compete in women's sports. Vulnerable women in prison or rape crisis centres
are paying the price of this left wing lunacy.
Paul speaks of the bullies in academia and their hypocrisy in choosing which speech shall be free. But he is not yet convinced, for whatever reason, about the centrality of facing down this idiocy which is an absolute gift to the far right in our ranks.
Or maybe he is convinced but mindful that a major split on the Left would only help our enemies. Maybe the Labour leadership is allowing the courts and the feminist movement (led among others by JK Rowling) to do the battles for them. I sincerely hope this is the case.
I totally agreed as always but how realistic is it that the progressive side of politics in say the USA or UK will do anything to implement the how to save democracy programme outlined here. I am with Paul Mason 200% but am very pessimistic on whether or not people will listen to the complete sense that he writes here.
Karl Marx spoke of the 'vast decaying moth-eaten brocade of religion (or was it the church?)' because it was an institution underpinned by an ideology that had become meaningless in a modern materialist world. Today that moth eaten brocade would appear to be the lengthy explanations from socialists who start their analysis with the declaration that 'the system is broken' and 'we need transformative change'. In Marx's time Capitalism was the enemy, now it's Neoliberalism.
But has any political commentator ever been elected to public office? Because once you have you discover just how hard it is to realise change. The default of socialists in that situation is usually to blame 'the leadership' of their parties and try to persuade disappointed people around them to elevate them. But as Corbyn found to his cost the most coherent theory on the unfairness of Capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to its overthrow.
The basic economic analysis in this is similar to that offered by the American thinker Michael Lind in a recent talk at Policy Exchange. I’ve written today about what the implications are of this line of thinking for the forthcoming industrial strategy
https://open.substack.com/pub/williamcullernebown/p/the-politics-of-industrial-strategy?r=7eg9s&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
The basic economic analysis in this is similar to that offered by the American thinker Michael Lind in a recent talk at Policy Exchange. I’ve written today about what the implications are of this line of thinking for the forthcoming industrial strategy
The problem for the Left is that it has become isolated from the lived experience of working people (something that was acutely obvious to George Orwell even in the 1930's). Even the concept of 'neoliberalism' needs a lengthy explanation for someone who would prefer a 'four ale bar'.
The Black and White Minstrels (where white men wore make up to mimic grotesque stereotypes of black men) on TV was acceptable in the 1970's. But now this 'blackface' is rightly regarded as completly unacceptable. The lived experience of black people was respected and it's unlikely that even the extreme Right wouldn't dare champion it's return.
The lobby for Feminism is unfortunately, so far, less powerful than the forces driving Black Lives Matter. But nowadays a man can claim to be a women (in some cases without even presenting as one) and demand to be accepted by women in the spaces reserved for their protection.
For every socialist who considers the masses need educating on the topic of 'trans rights' there are probably 100,000 who are shocked to see a male bodied boxer punch a women in the ring or failed male athletes compete in women's sports. Vulnerable women in prison or rape crisis centres
are paying the price of this left wing lunacy.
Paul speaks of the bullies in academia and their hypocrisy in choosing which speech shall be free. But he is not yet convinced, for whatever reason, about the centrality of facing down this idiocy which is an absolute gift to the far right in our ranks.
Or maybe he is convinced but mindful that a major split on the Left would only help our enemies. Maybe the Labour leadership is allowing the courts and the feminist movement (led among others by JK Rowling) to do the battles for them. I sincerely hope this is the case.
I totally agreed as always but how realistic is it that the progressive side of politics in say the USA or UK will do anything to implement the how to save democracy programme outlined here. I am with Paul Mason 200% but am very pessimistic on whether or not people will listen to the complete sense that he writes here.