interesting take from a Tory columnist:
l
after Murdoch scandals, UK conservative asks: Is the Left right?
Sat, 2011-07-23 08:57
#1
after Murdoch scandals, UK conservative asks: Is the Left right?
Sat, 2011-07-23 09:02
#2
oops, better link:
A key symptom of popular disillusionment with the Left was the moment, in the late 1970s, when the circulation of Rupert Murdoch's Thatcher-supporting Sun overtook that of the ever-Labour Daily Mirror. Working people wanted to throw off the chains that Karl Marx had claimed were shackling them - and join the bourgeoisie which he hated. Their analysis of their situation was essentially correct. The increasing prosperity and freedom of the ensuing 20 years proved them right.
But as we have surveyed the Murdoch scandal of the past fortnight, few could deny that it has revealed how an international company has bullied and bought its way to control of party leaderships, police forces and regulatory processes. David Cameron, escaping skilfully from the tight corner into which he had got himself, admitted as much. Mr Murdoch himself, like a tired old Godfather, told the House of Commons media committee on Tuesday that he was so often courted by prime ministers that he wished they would leave him alone.
Sat, 2011-07-23 09:59
#3
Northern Shoveler
Working people wanted to throw off the chains that Karl Marx had claimed were shackling them - and join the bourgeoisie which he hated. Their analysis of their situation was essentially correct. The increasing prosperity and freedom of the ensuing 20 years proved them right.
The prosperity of the ruling elite and their freedom from the restraint of democratically elected governments. This type of embedded lies is Double Speak at its finest. War is Peace.
Sat, 2011-07-23 11:56
#4
Heh, to me his argument is sort of "When they actually had power in society, they were a nightmare, but now that they are broken and crushed, I feel a little sympathy for them."'
To condemn the fundamentals of what someone stands for is not deciding they are right!
Sat, 2011-07-23 12:38
#5
Northern Shoveler
Heh, to me his argument is sort of "When they actually had power in society, they were a nightmare, but now that they are broken and crushed, I feel a little sympathy for them."'
To condemn the fundamentals of what someone stands for is not deciding they are right!
Could you explain I really don't understand what you mean.
Sat, 2011-07-23 13:53
#6
What I mean is that he is claiming to see that the left has actually seen things how they really are, but then he goes on to ridicule them in a variety of ways: 1) Their trade unionism 2) Their belief in the ability of governments to intervene and help common people 3) He claims that the Reagan era was one of hope, and only the "tone" has made the same ideas unpleasant now 4) At the very end, their stupidity in seizing opportunities.
So, it seems that he hasn't decided that the left is right. He's decided that the were right on the issue of newspaper concentration--great, no one on earth could possibly argue against that in the middle of this scandal. And he agrees that "the system" is in some way unfair for regular people or small countries. But even extreme capitalists have always agreed on that, haven't they?
So, what he likes is some liberal social criticism in order to reform right-wing capitalism to keep working essentially as it has.
OK, maybe that hasn't cleared it up. I'm not great on logical writing, sorry!
Sat, 2011-07-23 14:25
#7
Northern Shoveler
I was pointing out that he was using untruths to backup his version of history. The last 20 years in all western democracies the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting less and less. Those are the facts not his propaganda that the last 20 years have seen an increase in prosperity and freedom.
Telling a lie over and over is how the right wing manufacture consent. I like to point out the embedded lies. Murdoch and Black have each played major roles in destroying journalistic objectivity over the last 30 years. At the same time they have become fabulously wealthy. To me that only proves that being a sycophant for the truly rich and powerful pays well.
I found the quote above to be a particularly glaring example of embedded lies being used to rewrite history and that is why I commented on it.
Sat, 2011-07-23 15:25
#8
Ah, I see. I didn't get your angle on it either. That makes sense, he does take liberties with history in his narrative.
Sun, 2011-07-24 07:59
#9
True, but he manages to hit a few nails on the head:
"The rich run a global system that allows them to accumulate capital and pay the lowest possible price for labour. The freedom that results applies only to them. The many simply have to work harder, in conditions that grow ever more insecure, to enrich the few. Democratic politics, which purports to enrich the many, is actually in the pocket of those bankers, media barons and other moguls who run and own everything."
Sun, 2011-07-24 10:15
#10
Northern Shoveler
Interesting since that is far more truthful and a contradiction of the other propaganda. Increased prosperity and freedom was in the context of the workingman and blatantly false. The many having to work harder and grow ever more insecure hardly seems like an increase in either prosperity or freedom.
Our media is full of such embedded lies even when they contradict other parts of stories.