Thursday, November 18, 2010

Liberalism is not socialism

Laurie Penny asks “Why do liberals hate Margaret Thatcher?” The simple answer is, of course, that they don’t. Some might like her, some might love her, some might despise her. They aren’t the homogenous bunch implied by Penny’s question. But acknowledging that would undermine Penny’s hyperbole, which in turn would destroy her whole writing style.

But what is startling about Penny’s question is the implication that she is liberal. Anyone who has ever read pretty much any of her work will know that she is a socialist through and through. And even if you think socialism is the best thing in the world ever (and it very clearly isn’t, but that's for another day) you should still be aware that socialism is not liberalism – and the two are often in conflict.

Of course, you could argue that Penny is liberal in the sense that she is towards the liberal side of the liberal/authoritarian spectrum. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work either. Socialism requires an authoritarian side to it in order to function (redistribution, for example, clearly requires coercion in practice). Furthermore, Penny’s awful whining about spending cuts shows that she is a statist through and through; she can't cope with the reduction in the size, scope and influence of the state.

I want to be clear here – I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with a socialist like Penny expressing their opinions. Indeed, she is paid by a largely socialist magazine to write socialist articles. But the word liberal has been much maligned, and it doesn’t need to be further maligned through misuse by socialist types such as Laurie Penny.

Ultimately, her question should have read "why do socialists hate Margaret Thatcher?" Then again, I don't suppose that said question would have had the same capacity to bring about paragraph after paragraph of bile against "Thatcher as an icon". It is pretty obvious why socialists would hate Thatcher, as she did a lot to break down the (failing) consensus politics that had so dominated in this country since the war...

Labels: , , , ,

6 Comments:

At 11:18 am , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maggie destroyed our manufacturing base. Unless you make anything, you can't export anything,ego; you can't make any real money, only the fantasy gambling (aka financial services) money, which has a nasty habit of disappearing into thin air at random intervals.

 
At 12:14 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

Any comment to make on the substance of the piece? If not, can I kindly suggest that you bugger off with your Thatcher bashing to another site. The New Statesman would be a grand place for you to visit.

 
At 1:20 pm , Blogger Mr. Fun Virginian said...

It seems all the presidents after Reagan are intent on destroying value of US dollar and shipping factories and jobs overseas - Republican (conservative) or Democrat (liberal). But really even the above terms don't fit together. We will have to learn to break the moral agenda apart from the fiscal agenda; then break apart the power agenda. A lot of socialism in USA right now under Obama, but the shift of US jobs started with Bush Sr. Soon USA will make nothing in USA except design, and China seems about to take that over. Money is being siphoned out of USA. Short term not buying foreign goods can help a lot, but people need to wake up that there are bigger forces controlling America than simple votes between liberal and conservative / Repulican and Democrat. Else we risk being second class world country. Time to wake up now.

 
At 1:47 pm , Blogger Autonomous Mind said...

What the Penny piece shows is that too many people don't have a clue about liberalism.

I am a classical liberal. That is nothing like a Liberal Democrat and certainly nothing like a Labour socialist. But then why would Ms Penny understand that?

Like all socialists she needs to put a name on her belief system that gives the impression of supporting liberty and individual freedom. But as she is a big statist - and the aims of such people are to curtail individual freedom and erode liberty to bolster the state - she doesn't support those ideals.

Thatcher was largely a classical liberal. That would be anathema to Ms Penny, but it would be the correct description. Unless Penny sees herself in the mould of Thatcher she needs to learn more about political theory.

Perhaps she should read Jonah Goldberg's excellent 'Liberal Fascism' where the distinction between 'Penny Liberalism' and classical liberalism is laid bare.

 
At 5:42 pm , Anonymous Giolla Decair said...

Anon would that be the same British manufacturing whose output has been grown over the last 30 years?
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2010/10/should-we-grow-more-lettuce.html

 
At 4:29 pm , Blogger Span Ows said...

Giolla, the good thing about the post you link to is that is also shows-up dumb remarks like Anonymous's first sentence for the lies that they are: during Maggie's 'reign' even those employed in manufacturing was reasonably stable through the 80s (81/82 to 89)

...and of course if they want tehy could look up independent figures themselves. But they won't. Maggie bashing is part of their blinkered evil.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home