[Politics] It isn't easy being Blue.
Dec. 15th, 2005 09:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyWhilst out on the town a few weeks ago, I got talking to a girl in a bar. After a while, for reasons I can't recall, the conversation came round to politics. Suddenly she stopped short and looked at me quizzically.
"You're right-wing, aren't you?"
"Yup", I replied.
"Well, I don't think we should let homeless people starve to death on the street", she said, smugly ensuring her moral superiority over me and my homeless-starving ways whilst necking the booze I'd just bought her like there was no tomorrow.
A friend of mine who shares my political opinions once told me they didn't really like going to social events with many of my friends, because they knew that they would be belittled and insulted for holding their political beliefs. They found it upsetting that they would be insulted by people they barely knew not even for their beliefs, but for what those people considered their beliefs to be without even taking the time to find out the reality of the situation. In other circumstances this sort of behaviour would be considered 'prejudice'. When you're dealing with a lot of people I run into, it's called 'informed debate'. Sometimes it's nice to open LJ and read the wise words of the mind-numbingly gorgeous![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
vulgarcriminal, who is political voice of reason.
The irony of the intellectual intolerance of many people amuses me in a bleak sort of way; most of the people on my friends list consider themselves to be tolerant, understanding and non-judgemental; however this just highlights the basic dichotomy of many people's political views - they're tolerant of any kink, perversion, social attitudes and outre behaviour which they happen to agree with. Their tolerance doesn't extend so far as being polite to people who think that, oh, say, civil liberties have been undermined quite a lot by the current government or that spending thirty-seven billion quid which we don't have every year in a slowing economy might lead to trouble later.
raggedhalo recently made a post in which he compared prejudice against vegetarians to homophobia, and presented himself as being a persecuted minority. Personally I think it's a bit difficult to be a persecuted minority when you're a socialist vegetarian in a student union, but that's just me.
Re-reading his post, it's interesting to me just how much of his argument I can apply to my own point. After all, if he can compare prejudice against sexualities with his own political views, so can I - to object to that would be prejudiced, wouldn't it? Back in the 1980's, being gay would get you socially ostracised and sometimes insulted in public, whilst being Conservative would get you social acceptance and congratulations on your snappy dress sense. And now...?
There's a comparison to be made here, I think...
Of course, I think Joe's comparison is as nonsensical as mine. But it's funny nevertheless.
"You're right-wing, aren't you?"
"Yup", I replied.
"Well, I don't think we should let homeless people starve to death on the street", she said, smugly ensuring her moral superiority over me and my homeless-starving ways whilst necking the booze I'd just bought her like there was no tomorrow.
A friend of mine who shares my political opinions once told me they didn't really like going to social events with many of my friends, because they knew that they would be belittled and insulted for holding their political beliefs. They found it upsetting that they would be insulted by people they barely knew not even for their beliefs, but for what those people considered their beliefs to be without even taking the time to find out the reality of the situation. In other circumstances this sort of behaviour would be considered 'prejudice'. When you're dealing with a lot of people I run into, it's called 'informed debate'. Sometimes it's nice to open LJ and read the wise words of the mind-numbingly gorgeous
vulgarcriminal, who is political voice of reason.The irony of the intellectual intolerance of many people amuses me in a bleak sort of way; most of the people on my friends list consider themselves to be tolerant, understanding and non-judgemental; however this just highlights the basic dichotomy of many people's political views - they're tolerant of any kink, perversion, social attitudes and outre behaviour which they happen to agree with. Their tolerance doesn't extend so far as being polite to people who think that, oh, say, civil liberties have been undermined quite a lot by the current government or that spending thirty-seven billion quid which we don't have every year in a slowing economy might lead to trouble later.
raggedhalo recently made a post in which he compared prejudice against vegetarians to homophobia, and presented himself as being a persecuted minority. Personally I think it's a bit difficult to be a persecuted minority when you're a socialist vegetarian in a student union, but that's just me.Re-reading his post, it's interesting to me just how much of his argument I can apply to my own point. After all, if he can compare prejudice against sexualities with his own political views, so can I - to object to that would be prejudiced, wouldn't it? Back in the 1980's, being gay would get you socially ostracised and sometimes insulted in public, whilst being Conservative would get you social acceptance and congratulations on your snappy dress sense. And now...?
There's a comparison to be made here, I think...
Of course, I think Joe's comparison is as nonsensical as mine. But it's funny nevertheless.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: They're ALL dead Dave...
Date: 2005-12-16 12:07 am (UTC)24% of the US economy is based upon 'services'. Roughly the same with us (up 0.6% this quarter). That is, HARSHLY defined, as the bit of the economy that cannot exist if the rest screws up. The part made of dominoes. A quarter of our economic base is based on the BELIEF in it- and more than that based on IoU's. We owe 4.8 Billion to the EU as a NATION. We the people of Britain owe £1 TRILLION to banks, building societies and those who lend money. We know this. We feel it.
We OWNS this debt? Not the governemnt- nor ANY government. Nor small cabals of evil bankers/industrialists (dispite what really pathetic left-wingers will claim). the truth is NO ONE owns this. No one CAN regulate it.
The classic model of a free-market economy is that you leave it alone. Yes, it can be harsh but it will regulate itself. But as time goes but this 'rule' is being tested, like the Theory of Gravity- and JUST LIKE the Theory of Gravity it has been found not to match the data we are receiving. In the face of quantum physics scientists know that gravity is gonna have to go and something else (maybe superstring) will have to replace it. In the face of TOTAL deregulation of the global economy, all traditional models are falling down.
The great crime, THE greatest crime of Marxism is that it did not account for human greed or the desire to have wealth. The greatest crime of the free market is that it fails to account for non-economic needs. Totally. It supposes that private industry will fill the void. And in a local/national/even semi-global model it will work. But not in the current situation. It's too big. Why else is George W. Bush, the man who said within his first year of office that one of his goals was to see that the world 'accepts the benefits of free market economics' refuse to give up protectionism of his farmers and his steel workers? Why will the French not do the same for their farmers? Why is Blair trying not to give up the rebate. And why are NO economic models being presented that the global leaders can show to people and go 'Look, look, if we do this, THIS will happen and it will all be fine'?
They would if they could! But they can't. As the Economists who advocated globalisation now HAVE it and have NO idea where it will go next. And they are seeing, like Marxism before it, they did not equate in the human condition.
People feel helpless Dave. The free market has done one awesome thing- we are a single world economy. One world. united. Every man, woman and child on Earth is part of something bigger. That is goddamn awesome.
But with it, no safeguards have been erected. Not ONE nation on Earth who has a free market economy ever established it quickly- they ALL took baby steps; placing regulations in place; carefully sheparding their populations towards the true opening up of economic constraints. The world has taken the world into a Global economy WITHOUT anyone attempting to establish such contraints. How fast? I mean really. britain took CENTURIES to go free market. Globalisation has taken place in just over two decades.
In the face of such a thing- what do we expect the results to be? I would hazard that perhaps helplessness, fustration, a longing for what was, reactionary politics and a growing sense of isolation from increasingly 'helpless' politicians (at least that is how we see them) would be inevitable. Look about us my friend. We can't get RID of globalisation. To even try would be economic suicide. But its causing problems- and no one, not one person is able to solve them.
Welcome to the REAL 'New World Order'.
(shrugs)