in Britain and most comparable countries the left is not thriving. Quite the opposite. The Brown government’s mild tilt to the left has made it no more popular. At the European elections in June, left-leaning parties, whether in office or opposition, cautious or militant, were trounced across the continent. Votes went instead to mainstream conservative parties or far right and anti- immigration groups. Over the summer the broader political debate, particularly in Britain, has shifted in the same direction: “The crisis of the financial markets has become a crisis of public spending – it’s incredible!” says Hilary Wainwright, editor of leftwing magazine Red Pepper. “Public servants are going to be scrutinised down to the last paperclip, while bankers are not going to be scrutinised down to the last million they have received from the government.”
Has the left missed its moment?
Why, yes, says Laban, repeating himself here and here. But it was a comment by 'socialist' StevieB that struck me :
StevieB - “the USSR was better than capitalism because it raised the living standards of the workers and peasants far higher than the previous capitalist regime had. The revolution allowed the USSR to become a substantial economic power.”
These two things were in fact inversely related. The USSR became a substantial power in the 1930s by depressing personal consumption (aka living standards’) to levels which kept the population in poverty and starved several million, but which enabled the government to massively expand education, the military, aviation and heavy industry. Just in time for WW2, as it happened.
Similarly levels of personal consumption are relatively low in China today, though nowhere near Soviet levels and due to a high savings ratio rather than confiscation, which enables the government to expand etc etc.
In the West, by contrast, personal consumption is actually higher then GDP in many countries - the difference being made up by borrowing. Not a sustainable scenario.
This got me thinking about education. When the Soviets expanded education, it was real education, with right and wrong answers. They wanted - and needed - engineers, chemists, agronomists, vets, metallurgists. They weren't targeted on how many peasants' offspring got to college, nor less did they want to dumb down grades to exhibit their glorious sucesses - they needed large numbers of real, competent people to face a real potential challenge.
In the UK now we expand (using borrowed money) psychology, media studies, sociology, while physics departments close. The purpose of education is increasingly to make HMG (and young people) feel good about themselves, rather than to meet perceived national needs (quite apart from education being good in itself).
And if we find we still need 'real' educated people ? Import them.
14 comments:
"the USSR was better than capitalism because it raised the living standards of the workers and peasants far higher than the previous capitalist regime had"
Russia did not have a "capitalist regime" before the revolution. It had a semi-feudal mess.
As you said, the Communists severely depressed living standards. The ability of the Far Left to believe things which are in complete and obvious opposition to the truth always astonishes me.
"It had a semi-feudal mess." True, but it was industrialising very successfully - that's why the German ruling clique was so keen to grab the chance to inflate the Austrian-Serbian contretemps into a full scale war which would allow them an excuse to attack Russia. They wanted to knock out the Russians before the Russians were too strong to attack.
Well, as Robert Conquest and others have demonstrated, the facts of the Russian industrialisation were vastly overstated both by falsifying what they did achieve and by underestimating what the pre-Soviet era had achieved.
And as Laban says the Soviet era saw a progressive decline in living standards. It certainly didn't do anything to validate what SteveB claims. Indeed despite years of claims by useful idiots in the west, the fall of the Eastern bloc showed things were much worse than even the cold war warriors had claimed.
Also whilst it is important not to dismiss Soviet achievement in science, it is clear that scientific achievements were just as likely to be overstated as Tractor production. We only have to think of Lysenko to remind ourselves of how ideology can pervert scientific endeavour.
Useful too to remind ourselves that the Soviet Union didn't beat the Nazis through being scientific leaders but by being able to mass produce the basic equipment and by having the reserves of manpower to use it. The T34 was a good tank though.
They wanted - and needed - engineers, chemists, agronomists, vets, metallurgists. They weren't targeted on how many peasants' offspring got to college, nor less did they want to dumb down grades to exhibit their glorious sucesses - they needed large numbers of real, competent people to face a real potential challenge.
I think here you risk the self delusion displayed by SteveB. Quite clearly the Soviet Union spent the early 1930s on a stupid drive to collectivise the farms and the late 1930s on the great Purge. All "facts" from five years plans in that period are questionable. Indeed, given what we know now about false claims of tractor production it seems more realistic to argue that the event of WWII was the stimulus that refocused efforts away from paper production towards actual manufacture.
The Soviet army that struggled against the Fins and was trounced by the Germans in 1941, came back only when it abandoned politically correct reforms like no distinctive uniforms for officers and so on. In other words the Soviet Union acted just like every other Socialist experiment in history - ideology trumps the facts.
"Well, as Robert Conquest and others have demonstrated, the facts of the Russian industrialisation were vastly overstated both by falsifying what they did achieve and by underestimating what the pre-Soviet era had achieved."
So that's where the AGW crowd found their strategy of abolishing the MWP and fiddling the temperature records!
Russia won WW2 because Stalin reopened the Orthodox churches. Perhaps Stalin In his fear fled back to his father. The wonder-working Icon of Our Lady of Kazan was borne in procession from Leningrad to Moscow, and the prayers of the Theotokos and the Saints bought Russia victory over the heathen Nazi hordes. Stalin did this on the advice of Ilya, the metropolitan of Lebanon who upon hearing of the attack on Russia locked himself in a cave and went without food or sleep as he knelt in prayer to the Mother of God. He received a miraculous vision from Mary which told him that Russia would not be saved until the Churches were reopened, Priests released from prison, the icons venerated once again.
Has the left blown its big chance? Probably yes, for the moment. The important question though is, Assuming Gordon does lose the next election will someone be asking a similar question about the right in a few years time?
As far as IO can see at the moment, Dave is likely to make a real mess which will result in very rapid disillusionment with the Tories out of favour for years.
The Soviet Union won WW2 because it was run by a homicidal maniac who was prepared to slaughter a vast amount of his own people in order to win. Luckily for him (and us) he hadn't been all that efficient at murdering them in the 20s and 30s, so he had enough left to throw at the Nazis. The quality of the tanks and planes didnt really matter, over a certain level of competence. What mattered was producing enough of them, and having the manpower to use them.
TDK
i We only have to think of Lysenko to remind ourselves of how ideology can pervert scientific endeavour.
True, however, some FACISTS seem to think that Franz Boas was a fraud, The Authoritarian Personality was made up and IQ is some sort of useful measure - a useful measure for white supremacists more like.
There are even people who DENY global warming.
There are reactionaries in our midst who are trying to tar our own scientific community with the same brush.
There are reactionaries in our midst who are trying to tar our own scientific community with the same brush.
If the cap fits...
"True, however, some FACISTS seem to think that Franz Boas was a fraud, The Authoritarian Personality was made up and IQ is some sort of useful measure - a useful measure for white supremacists more like."
Parody, I assume.
Parody, I assume.
Yeah, could have been better I suppose. But I'm knackered after too many late nights playing computer games where I CONQUER THE WORLD!!!!
Funnily enough I used to have a girlfriend whose parents still believed in Lysenko in the late 1970s. They were "tankers" who rejected the mainstream CPGB. The mother was concurrently a Spiritualist and claimed to see my dead relatives standing around me when I called round.
My ex-girlfriend later joined a peace convoy for a decade before becoming a teacher of secondary level Biology (if we believe Friends reunited). She used to practice Tarot and believed in witchcraft and homoeopathy.
"Barking" doesn't capture it really.
She sounds quite a girl, TDK.
Post a Comment