Goodbye Capitalism, Hello Feudal Fascism?

[hard2miss]

ug, she not woman, she cavegirl! bash, bash, bang...

The bang part I could justify, but being a modern man, the bash bit is a bit pre 90's

[MadnBad]

The bang part I could justify, but being a modern man, the bash bit is a bit pre 90's

 

Nothing wrong with a bit of bash bash as a percursor to the bang after all some lasses love a bit of S&M. (yay never got to use that smilie before)

 

Sorry cavegirl we're dragging this sensible topic down to a rather less than intellectual level

[Cavegirl]

Politically other than having, through their lying islington-centric focus group obsessed spin machine "ban everything" authoritarian arrogance and general warmongering, been driven to loathe and depise the labour party I'm pretty open minded. Which is why I like the idea of a coalition between the right and left of politics that we have now.

 

The whole basis of Maoism was one man makes the calls (see North Korea now). That is clearly not remotely possible in a coalition government. Even key decisions like whether to sack Cable for his stupid comments are subject to discussion at the least between the PM and deputy PM.

 

Changes need to be made, not for the idealogical change for changes sake we saw with labour but because we're skint and paying a fortune in interest so cuts have to be made. By having two parties with some convergent views but also many opposing views you get negotiation and debate and compromise, all things which are diametrically opposed to maoist policy.

 

Cables gang of 4 comment was one of several rather silly comments he's made showing off to a constituent, for example his deluded belief he holds a nuclear option to bring the government down. Rather embarrassing for him and hopefully now he realises his nuclear weapon is a wet firework and will shut up and get on with what remains of his job. The man overestimated his importance, I think he's been very lucky to keep his job and that job is now what he will hopefully focus his energies on.

 

It's a difficult time, difficult decisions need to be made and I think we all need to be a bit grown up about it and accepted we'll all take a hit in one way or another.

 

Thanks for an interesting reply Andy (and to the rest of you -for shame!! There'll be no banging or bashing happening in my cave thanks very much hahaha!!).

 

I think we see this issue differently Andy and I hope I can explain my points clearly enough that you might see where I'm coming from.

 

I don't see Cameron as the next grand dictator of the country in the Maoist sense. I also don't see the benefits of having a coalition government that you have suggested. Both Mussolini and Hitler came to power through coalition governments. A coalition, in my mind, symbolises extreme socio-political turmoil and disillusion, further weakened by in-fighting and point scoring.

 

What I do see is Cameron/ Clegg selling state power, resources and responsibility to 'community leaders'. They have suggested in the media that these leaders will be grass root community groups and the charity sector, which sounds fine and dandy, but I fear it will actually be wealthy business owners and multinational corporations who benefit from this mass sell-off. This statement from the PCS link I provided in my OP seems to confirm my fears-

 

At the same time, the government’s publication of the “preferred bidder” list of those companies to deliver the flexible new deal confirms that – contrary to earlier spin – charities and “third sector” providers have been excluded in favour of large private sector companies such as Serco (a FTSE 100 listed public services provider), which is earmarked for contracts worth £500 million.

 

I worry that this will extend to schools, hospitals, prisons, public land etc. All those areas of public life that ought to be owned by the people and managed either by the people or by the state. This is, in a sense, feudal fascism. Feudal because it's localised and community led, fascist because it is corporatist or business' running and controlling the major facilities of the public life. Putting profits ahead of public interest (which companies are bound by law to do) cannot be a good thing long term when it happens on such a huge scale.

 

This seems to be what the government means when it says that the private sector will pick up the jobs from the public sector- basically the public sector will just be sold off to the private sector in order to raise funds to pay off the interest on the enormous debts we owe.

 

Is it really worth supplicating ourselves to this extent just to save an already doomed credit rating? To hope that by selling off the entire fabric of the state to large companies we can get a few more decades of the economic infinite growth paradigm that will enable us to keep shopping? What's really so 'grown up' about that?

[hard2miss]

Thanks for an interesting reply Andy (and to the rest of you -for shame!! There'll be no banging or bashing happening in my cave thanks very much hahaha!!).

Being likened to a cave has put me off anyhow

[Cavegirl]

Being likened to a cave has put me off anyhow

 

I think this comment says much more about your obvious inadequacies than it does about my dwelling place thanks very much!

[spooky3]

...

 

What I do see is Cameron/ Clegg selling state power, resources and responsibility to 'community leaders'. They have suggested in the media that these leaders will be grass root community groups and the charity sector, which sounds fine and dandy, but I fear it will actually be wealthy business owners and multinational corporations who benefit from this mass sell-off. This statement from the PCS link I provided in my OP seems to confirm my fears-

 

 

 

I worry that this will extend to schools, hospitals, prisons, public land etc. All those areas of public life that ought to be owned by the people and managed either by the people or by the state. This is, in a sense, feudal fascism. Feudal because it's localised and community led, fascist because it is corporatist or business' running and controlling the major facilities of the public life. Putting profits ahead of public interest (which companies are bound by law to do) cannot be a good thing long term when it happens on such a huge scale.

 

This seems to be what the government means when it says that the private sector will pick up the jobs from the public sector- basically the public sector will just be sold off to the private sector in order to raise funds to pay off the interest on the enormous debts we owe.

 

Is it really worth supplicating ourselves to this extent just to save an already doomed credit rating? To hope that by selling off the entire fabric of the state to large companies we can get a few more decades of the economic infinite growth paradigm that will enable us to keep shopping? What's really so 'grown up' about that?

 

 

Surely most public institutions have already been sold off under Labour, e.g. school playing fields, then schools, council buildings, council works departments, etc... Most are owned by companies and leased back to the council.

 

As to "preferred bidder lists", surely that's the same as PFI.

 

This is why were already here... Gordon sold the gold and all the property portfolio, hence no credit rating!

[spooky3]

Is the coalition stopping the right to buy initiative for council homes to stop the depleting council house stock, e.g. sell them cheaper than you build them... But keep building them...

[andygardener]

Thanks for an interesting reply Andy (and to the rest of you -for shame!! There'll be no banging or bashing happening in my cave thanks very much hahaha!!).

 

I think we see this issue differently Andy and I hope I can explain my points clearly enough that you might see where I'm coming from.

 

I don't see Cameron as the next grand dictator of the country in the Maoist sense. I also don't see the benefits of having a coalition government that you have suggested. Both Mussolini and Hitler came to power through coalition governments. A coalition, in my mind, symbolises extreme socio-political turmoil and disillusion, further weakened by in-fighting and point scoring.

 

What I do see is Cameron/ Clegg selling state power, resources and responsibility to 'community leaders'. They have suggested in the media that these leaders will be grass root community groups and the charity sector, which sounds fine and dandy, but I fear it will actually be wealthy business owners and multinational corporations who benefit from this mass sell-off. This statement from the PCS link I provided in my OP seems to confirm my fears-

 

 

 

I worry that this will extend to schools, hospitals, prisons, public land etc. All those areas of public life that ought to be owned by the people and managed either by the people or by the state. This is, in a sense, feudal fascism. Feudal because it's localised and community led, fascist because it is corporatist or business' running and controlling the major facilities of the public life. Putting profits ahead of public interest (which companies are bound by law to do) cannot be a good thing long term when it happens on such a huge scale.

 

This seems to be what the government means when it says that the private sector will pick up the jobs from the public sector- basically the public sector will just be sold off to the private sector in order to raise funds to pay off the interest on the enormous debts we owe.

 

Is it really worth supplicating ourselves to this extent just to save an already doomed credit rating? To hope that by selling off the entire fabric of the state to large companies we can get a few more decades of the economic infinite growth paradigm that will enable us to keep shopping? What's really so 'grown up' about that?

 

As I understand it your concern is with privatisation, outsourcing and state asset sales. These have been going on for a very long time (new labour were certainly hell bent on doing masses of all 3). I do share those concerns to a degree where it's done how labour did it - with no regard to the benefit or lack there-of to the taxpayer.

 

The coalition must be held to account on any of the above actions and be prepared to show that in every case the benefit to the taxpayer is tangible and valuable. So I would oppose any signing of labour style contracts with the likes of a4E without any binding performance targets. If the private sector can bring something to the party then great, if they have money to invest in a project which the taxpayer cannot afford (say a bridge or a motorway) then it's only fair they make a return on it. But if the taxpayer is putting up the money and they are merely managing it at a profit then I would be opposed to that.

 

I'd like to see results based contracts with watertight wording, no more coming back when they underperform and renegotiating for a bigger payment for worse results.

 

On the plus side the coalition are allready renegotiating a lot of the big private sector contracts awarded by labour at ridiculous prices and entirely balanced in the companies favour so the companies could not lose and the taxpayer could not win.

 

If the coalition end up signing the sort of contracts labour did then i'll oppose them, however the early signs seem positive that they will be much more responsible in ensuring taxpayer value in their dealings with the private sector.

[Cavegirl]

As I understand it your concern is with privatisation, outsourcing and state asset sales. These have been going on for a very long time (new labour were certainly hell bent on doing masses of all 3). I do share those concerns to a degree where it's done how labour did it - with no regard to the benefit or lack there-of to the taxpayer.

 

The coalition must be held to account on any of the above actions and be prepared to show that in every case the benefit to the taxpayer is tangible and valuable. So I would oppose any signing of labour style contracts with the likes of a4E without any binding performance targets. If the private sector can bring something to the party then great, if they have money to invest in a project which the taxpayer cannot afford (say a bridge or a motorway) then it's only fair they make a return on it. But if the taxpayer is putting up the money and they are merely managing it at a profit then I would be opposed to that.

 

I'd like to see results based contracts with watertight wording, no more coming back when they underperform and renegotiating for a bigger payment for worse results.

 

On the plus side the coalition are allready renegotiating a lot of the big private sector contracts awarded by labour at ridiculous prices and entirely balanced in the companies favour so the companies could not lose and the taxpayer could not win.

 

If the coalition end up signing the sort of contracts labour did then i'll oppose them, however the early signs seem positive that they will be much more responsible in ensuring taxpayer value in their dealings with the private sector.

 

My questions then become- If the government eventually owns nothing and runs little, why should we pay taxes to it and what is the point of it at all? Do we really want a government that only takes our money by force so that it can manage our debt?

 

Why keep feeding our hard earned wealth to a debt that can never be repaid and that we've, individually, never contracted to pay? Why not just leave the state, UK PLC, to renege on the debt, dissassociate ourselves from the state and start again?

[Wildcat]

The Coalition Govt.s ideology seems to be Neo-Liberal with tendencies towards Minarchism, or Anarchist-Capitalism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liberal

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism_and_minarchism

 

The problem for me is that the power of Corporations is far greater than that of workers, already. The further loss of democratic control over state provision of services and of protections for workers is a step backwards for all of us that work for a living, in favour of those that invest for a living.