To loathe lefties with a passion?

[Abitwobblynow]

Came across this and loved it. Punctures left wing twats right between the eyes!

"The point is that the "hierarchy of victims " is not an accident nor unique to this case. It is the whole basis on which lefties' views and loyalties in any issue are shaped - i.e. not by its rights and wrongs, but by who the protagonists are.

Any group you can think of can be slotted somewhere into the heirarchy of those whom the left either likes - ethnic minorities, Muslims, communists, strikers, the disabled, women, gays, public sector workers, dole claimants, and criminals, for example - or loathes: Americans, Tories, farmers, taxpayers, men generally, bankers and owners of private wealth.

These hatreds instruct the left on any issue. If demonstrating NUM miners are forcibly dispersed by the police, they side with the miners. If the Countryside Alliance are dispersed by the police, however, they side with the police, because they like miners and hate farmers.

If a Tory government withdraws money from pensioners it's the epitome of evil. If an NHS worker leaves the elderly to starve to death in their own excrement, the left couldn't care less. The left isn't pro-elderly unless this means being anti-someone else. If the someone else is the NHS producer, then the left isn't pro-elderly any more. The side they pick is the producer, who matters more than the consumer.

Where it all goes tits up is when two different client groups are at each others' throats. So the leftist sympathises with the criminal in general - unless the crime is domestic violence. Then they sympathise with the woman. Unless, again, the man is a Muslim cleric, in which case the lefty has to look away. Reggae singers going on about shooting gays in the head: this does not compute. Gangs of Muslims threatening gays: does not compute. Black governments victimising their own citizens? Pretend it isn't happening.

The left doesn't really give a toss about miners. What matters is who else is involved. White British police? - side with the miners. Black Communist-controlled police? - side with the police, they're above reproach - or at any rate, above miners [reference to ANC police and black miners at Marikana].

As we've noted before, Lefties reduce every issue to a disgusting form of Top Trumps. They are, quite simply, morally incompetent."

Is it unreasonable to agree that lefties are morally incompetent?

That's absurd left-wing propaganda MiniTheMinx, why on earth would you cut off in 2008 if not for leftie propaganda reasons (i.e. this data makes Labour look best).

Labour were in power until 2010. If you are going to cherry pick 1997-2008, when the global economy was in good shape and use it to prove that the Labour party managed the economy well, why not point out that in fact the budget deficit was over 10% by the time they left power!

Actually the global economy wasn't in such good shape by 2008. We were already in the grip of a liquidity crisis by 2007.

The truth that lefties hate is that New Labour adored bankers and bank bonuses. They encouraged "light touch" regulation (I.E no regulation). They then used the tax receipts on these bonuses, which were based on falsely inflated asset prices, to do their social engineering. However, they failed to regulate the public sector, so the huge money pumped into it mainly went into public sector inflation, caused by huge salary rises for those in the public sectors and a corresponding increase in the layers of management within the public sector. Public sector productivity collapsed under labour.

Now the bills need to be paid, the left are trying out a new narrative about how evil bankers (Tory, of course) brought down the world economy and endangered their amazing transformation of the public sector.

Just won't fly.

Can't speak for others, I'm left of labour let alone "new" labour.

New labour attempted to create a socially dependent populace & a big state with neo-liberal economic practice. Labour was pursuing Thatcherite economic policy whilst seeming to be on the side of working people. Clever really, it worked for a while.

Tony Benn once said that if all political decisions were taken democratically with the full backing of the entire population then you would see marxism

One of the most irritating things about Lefties (that they have in common with the LibDems) is that they have an oppositional mindset even when i government. For instance they take no responsibility for that nice Mr Blair, the Iraq war, Peter Mandelson and his relaxed about getting stinking rich and a raft of other such 'trivia'. When pressed apparently these weren't real Lefties. WTF, Blair was the elected leader of your party! The Left, always rewriting the past to suit.

Tony Benn was wrong, you would see democracy.

Marxism is about doing away with the state, the ultimate goal is to do away with all national borders and all state control........ie creating communism and democracy.

That's anarchy, not an all together bad thing. How do these communist plan to control the commune? If 49% want something different?

I think i'm probably left wing so YABU.

But this debate is a bit 'over my head' so i can't really join in.

Just wanted to say that the OP is making a bad generalisation & sounds quite unpleasant.

"Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes the state... ceases to exist"

"democracy begin to wither away, owing to the simple fact that, freed from capitalist slavery, from the untold horrors, savagery, absurdities, and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will gradually become accustomed to observing the elementary rules of social intercourse. They will become accustomed to observing them without force, without coercion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for coercion called the state

www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

The main reason for the state is control, it must control working people through fear, misinformation, state services and welfarism, it maintains the rule of law, selling our labour as we desire???? under capitalism the capitalists are free to set out the terms, we are free to work or take welfare because we do not have ownership of the means of production and we do not share in the social power that those profits confer upon capitalists.

The state is necessary under capitalism because the state is the controlling arm of the capitalist class. Control and the hegemony of capitalist ideologies keeps the working class down.

We live under a form of corporatism where money buys policy, where wars are started to further corporate interests for oil, resources and new markets globally.......that is the work of the state.....create nationalism in its people whilst furthering capitalist accumulation.

In history we have had slaves, serfs & peasants now we have an exploited working class. If you study slavery and the formation of patriarchal society you see that slavery and the formation of the state came about because of man's desire for private property and the social power this bestowed.

No private property, no class society = no social hierarchy, no exploitation and therefore no need for state control.

It doesn't scale.

Why?

larrygrylls Wed 27-Feb-13 09:29:48
"The truth that lefties hate is that New Labour adored bankers and bank bonuses."

Of course we hate it; not the truth but the fact. Plenty of us lefties hated it so much we were shouting it from the roof tops during the New Labour years. Hated it in the sense of "we see that this is true and it is a hateful thing" rather then "we'd hate for anyone to know about it".

As others have said, New Labour were trying to run a welfare state with a Neo-Liberal agenda.

PessaryPam Wed 27-Feb-13 10:07:52
"When pressed apparently these weren't real Lefties. WTF, Blair was the elected leader of your party! The Left, always rewriting the past to suit. "

So there were no Tories who hated Thatcher? No Tories who dislike Cameron?

Oh look, new Mumsnetters! Hello!

Oh look, bigoted and narrow-minded Mumsnetters who like to make sweeping generalisations mainly for the fun of it and to wind up others in the process - what fun!

Because humans evolved to live in smallish groups. This is not possible in our world today on any large scale.

As I remember it, plenty of traditional Conservatives felt about Margaret Thatcher the same way as plenty of traditional Labour supporters felt about Blair: they hated her guts and thought she was betraying the central ideals of Conservatism.

All of them? Oh dear.....

As I remember it the upper class stooges in the conservatives hated Thatcher because her allegiance wasn't to maintaining their class power but further eroding it with her love affair with the free market.

Have reported corporate vampire upthread.

Does it scale, well yes it does. Before the creation of the anarchic state and patriarchal power relations (2000+ BC) we did indeed live in small groups. But things have changed. We live in a global economy, the whole of human development through the various stages of production and social organisation has been necessary as is the pain we are going through now.

I remember plenty of ordinary Tory voters who were unhappy with the Thatcher and Major years because so much of the privatisation was ill thought out and not really working. Just because you have a general political stance doesn't mean you have to admire any politician who belongs to the same party.

I am a Christian. I could rattle off a whole list of priests and church leaders whom I do not admire at all, some of whom I consider absolutely disastrous for the church.

Cory,

I think you are taking this thread a little seriously. Everything you say is absolutely correct, but discussing nuanced politics can be quite dull, and also hard to do in pithy posts rather than long essays.

I am right wing but don't buy all the agenda. I do think, fundamentally, it is about how big you want the state to be and what you think that they should be responsible for. It is also about where you want to place the safety net, rather than whether it should exist at all etc. And, finally, there is the libertarian agenda (which I strongly subscribe to) that the state should stay out of individual's affairs unless there is a desperate need to intervene.

I took this thread, though, as a chance to poke some fun at left wingers (light heartedly) which counteracts 95% of Mumsnet, where the right are continually derided as stupid and heartless. I know that there are as many different shades of left wingers as of right wingers and, realistically, you cannot stereotype either of them.

Surely 'pure' libertarianism would disagree with there being a safety net at all?
Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Thinking about it, the libertarian safety net would be supplied by private charity, wouldn't it? So fairly...ephemeral.

Boulevard,

I don't think "pure" anything works well in politics. I don't think many people would like the idea of people starving while others live the life of our plutocracy, or that there would be no medical care at all if you could not afford it.

On the other hand, I think most people are amazed at some of the things that are currently thought of as reasonable for spending government (i.e our) money on, or some of the lack of controls over how it is spent.