>>2884913That a figure like Maurice Glasman can exist in our nominally centre-left party is an object example of how Britain goes beyond the usual vices of capitalist society and has cooked up something uniquely abominable.
A measure of him: As well as being a member of the global Trump nonce cabal (he was at the inauguration, telling everyone who'd listen the - truthful - point that Labour is not a liberal party, that it's the reactionary little Labour party.), a good pal of Steve Bannon, an EDL apologist, and that's just off the top of my head…
He gave a policy speech to the global-warming denialist "global warming policy foundation" he has an extended diatribe about how rainbows are a beautiful symbol of god flooding the planet because the original sin was victimhood culture, concluding
>And then the rainbow appeared, and it was a sign of his promise that He would never again try to destroy the world. Que sera sera. Unlike Putin, God renounced the nuclear option. The rainbow was a sign of God’s eternal commitment to the continued existence of the world. One of my political missions, by the way, is to reclaim the rainbow from the ownership of transexuals. A rainbow is a miraculous thing that looks beautiful even when witnessed from the Holloway Road. The story of the flood assured me that my historical analysis was correct.Mental!
I have come to believe almost precisely the opposite of him and the appropriation of token communitarian and socdem rhetoric by him and his ilk has been one of the two major motivators for my growing tolerance of neoliberal ideas. The other, ironically as we will see, is that I think market forces could remove power from London and from our current ruling class/caste, either to competent regional firms or to international capital. (By no means a benevolent master, but nowhere near as malevolent or as committed to keeping us in penury as our domestic ruling class.) Indeed, an underrated critique of our historical nationalisation program is that in the long-run it helped move power to the centre, and it did not return to the periphery post-"privatisation". Of course, in practice, the bastardised implementation of neoliberalism has lead to the rise of him and his global Trump-cult allies, but this demands fair analysis - just as the bastardised Keynesianism of the postwar consensus lead almost irrevocably to Thatcherism and to Blairism. (and for all Mr. Glasshouse disavows Blair, Blair shared much of the same communitarian fetish and indulgence of reactionary rhetoric, briefly considered "thinking the unthinkable" on welfare in 1997-8 with Frank Field, and of course Blair too is on the pro-War, pro-Trump side of things more generally. You'll forgive me if I put them in the same boat of
"much worse than just selling the whole country to Toyota and letting Akio Toyoda run the place.")
I would be open to compromise on almost anything if it could ensure his ilk, sympathisers, and useful idiots can be kept from power. I defend, in a circumscribed sense, economic liberalism and free trade and free markets and even parts of actually existing neoliberalism precisely because the alternative is not warm, competent, social democratic humanism, or even a sort of tough-but-idealistic modernised soviet style socialism, it is the visions of psycopaths like him and Bannon implemented through the borderline lawless administration of openly corrupt mobsters like Trump on the one hand and human vacuums like Starmer on the other, almost certainly trending towards a ruinous and potentially human-civilisation-destroying war in the final act. (As you touch on, there's always money for "defence", isn't there?)
Whatever nominally leftish sweeteners they throw in (dude we'll have factories again :) !) can only be understood in the context of the totality of their vision (weapons factories >:) !), which is unappealing in its own terms if you give equal weight to each part instead of allowing yourself to be seduced by wishfully reading only the parts you enjoy (the ol picrel trick) and when understood in terms of how it is actually likely to be implemented, weighed up against the class interests and so on within British society, it's just unspeakably awful.
The best idea of the lot - the only one on which we really agree - is with devolution and decentralisation of power, and that is precisely the least likely one to be implemented. (I've said in more words before: centralisation is
the fundamental British ideology and one of the major causes of our unusually bad politics and unusually dysfunctional society. Between the hard task of taking power away from London, or the easy one of having the supreme court conclude you've an equality act protected right to shoot any transsexual who wears anything more colourful than John Major's hair so as to
reclaim the rainbow, which do you think
The Amazing Maurice and his Uneducated Lumpenproletariat will choose?)