1. It was an attempt at humor - clearly infantile (maybe at the level of a 10 year old).
2. What I meant was that it is very easy to blame anyone and to think one is sophisticated and provocative when actually such statements are mainstream. We saw this a few weeks ago when certain people attacked someone who dared to ask a question about race. Presumably they felt they were challenging the ideological foundations of Western society whereas they were simply hopping on a bandwagon that has been rolling for decades. There is nothing brave about accusing people of racism - it's virtually demanded these days. What non-socialist is a non-racist?
4. The point is this: people complain about multinationals, etc. But multinationals do not go to war and kill millions of people, nor do they introduce ID cards, etc. The state does that and it can do it because it is a monopoly and the essence of all monopolies is to expand. Private companies these days work for the state (hence Halliburton for example is really a US government organisation).
It concerns me that you are fearful of companies and the market but not the biggest "firm" of them all: the government. Why is this?
-----Original Message-----
From:
[log in to unmask]
To:
[log in to unmask]
Sent: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 9:19
Subject: Re: Guardian Poll on Thatcher State Funeral
Dear John,
I like your provocative approach, and perhaps there's now room for clearer discussion on Thatcher and her legacy.
1. I do not understand your first point on capitals; this is an Email
arena, not for publication and obsessive scrutiny by proofreaders!
2. I think that the "thread" was beginning to offer opportunity for
critical discussion but as with my previous message things got a bit
personal and silly, in my view. I don't recall anyone blaming Thatcher
for all the world's ills. It was a profound shift from a more state-led
Keynesian-style economy to a Neo liberal 'monetarist' approach.
3. As far as I understand there was not any political party focus in
the discussions
, no overt love for Labour or Blair. I would imagine quite the
opposite, especially in regard to the Iraq e.g. that you provide for
us. No one suggested that the critical geography forum is necessarily
"progressive", whatever that means. Did they? We could also ask ourselves how "right-wing" Thatcher was, in herself and in her policies.
4. How can you equate the State with "evil"? Perhaps we can have some
references for where this analysis is made clear and justified. I quite
like the state: looking after me and my kids, and moreover, I fear and
have daily suspicion when it comes to the market (firms, businesses,
companies and corporations). I=2
0think the more power a state has the better so long as it's in
response to the demands of civil society and not the flippin market!
Everyone's panicking now! Now that the North's inflation is beginning
to catch-up with Zimbabwe's!
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: John Jackson <
[log in to unmask]>
To:
[log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:17
Subject: Re: Guardian Poll on Thatcher State Funeral
- Hide quoted text -
1. The whole point of public requests for removal w
as to express dissatisfaction with the unedifying nature of mocking
someone's predicted death. A ten year old would have understood that
and also would know how to use capitals (are you Gloria Watkins)?
2. I wonder just how "critical" this whole thread is? It is almost de
rigeur and therefore mainstream to blame Thatcher for the world's
ills.
3.When certain Labour party politicians are octogenarians, will there
be the same criticism? We can all agree that Blair has done tremendous
damage to this country especially regarding the Iraq War and civil
liberties. Or is it only progressive to criticise the "right," not
that Thatcher was especially right-wing.
4. The major perpetrator of evil is the State (taking a broad Gramscian
definition). Surely anyone who reduces its power (however minimally)
must be supported?
