GirlChat #737311

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

[cont'd from above]

Posted by girlzRprettiest on Monday, December 28 2020 at 06:51:45AM
In reply to I'll consilidate my reply to both your posts here posted by girlzRprettiest on Monday, December 28 2020 at 06:01:02AM

she believed that individual Britons could improve their lot without trade unions, high taxes or the EU.

This is another bald-faced lie. Thatcher's busting of the miner's union was a direct result of their threatened 1981 strike, which was halted due to government concessions (which literally improved miners' lot). As this Washington Post article reveals:
Thatcher spent the ensuing years plotting to make sure that [government concessions] never happened again, by changing trade union laws, stockpiling coals to blunt the impact of a strike on consumers and even having MI5 agents infiltrate the miner's unions.

So when the miners struck in 1984, she was ready. After nearly a year, the miners returned to work without any concessions from the government. The National Union of Miners, which just 10 years earlier had toppled the Conservative government of Edward Heath, was permanently weakened.

Keep in mind that Thatcher's tenure (1979-1990) was characterized not only by union-busting, but also other neoliberal policies (including spending cuts combined with tax cuts for the rich, privatization, and deregulation) that led to a recession and considerably increased unemployment. In effect, she presided over an enormous transfer of wealth from workers to the rich in a calculated, deliberately executed, long-term political stratagem, all while deceitfully blaming the former for their consequent destitution. As she publicly stated in a 1987 issue of Women's Own:
“Nowadays there really is no primary poverty left in this country… In Western countries we are left with problems that aren’t poverty. All right, there may be poverty because they don’t know how to budget, don’t know how to spend their earnings, but now you are left with the really hard fundamental character-personality defect.” [emphasis added]

This directly vindicates my earlier point that:
Thatcher promulgated these mislead the masses into thinking that the social problems of the day (namely, socioeconomic inequality) were resultant of individual defects rather than the system she enormously benefited from at their expense.

Once more, you are extremely foolish (brainwashed) for advocating and rationalizing this heartless witch's ideas, which she clearly does not even genuinely believe herself. Refer once more to my master/slave example.

right wing people don't wake up thinking "oh how am I going to oppress the masses today?"

Right-wing leaders like Thatcher, who are fully in the know, certainly do. To suggest they are ignorant to the socially harmful effects of their policies or general politics is supremely naive.

As for their followers, they all either likewise relish in the harms caused by social inequality, or else rationalize them as ethically justifiable or even good. In any case, the end result (which is paramount) is the same.

And most people are socially equal in Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea.

Like most people, you are politically uneducated and do not know what either socialism or communism are. Keep in mind that socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned and democratically controlled directly by the people. Communism, on the other hand, refers to societies that are classless, stateless, socialist, and moneyless. While Western media refer to certain troubled countries (like the ones you listed) as "socialist"/"communist," these usages of those terms are misnomers. To be sure, no countries have been either socialist or communist; on the contrary, all have been class states running on a money economy whose means of production are either privately owned, or else controlled by an elite bureaucratic class.

It does....Of course not. Where do you think I implied that?

This implication is corollary to the belief that there is no such thing as society. The prohibitions and social sanctions I noted are societal elements; they can no more exist independently of a society than laps can exist when standing upright. It is illogical to believe that these prohibitions/sanctions exist, but society does not.

I'm really liking your posts, but I think there are a lot of miscommunication between us going on.

Thanks! Now I feel guilty for being so harsh, lol. But I don't agree that there's any miscommunication here, at least not on my end. I know exactly what you're saying and have heard the same, tired points a million times before. Believe me, it's all bullshit.

Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)

Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?