Meh. Skip part one entirely and jump straight to part 2 of part 2, I reckon. Good summary. Loads of unanswered questions.
Part one is noted in the text as the 'why', while part 2 is the how and what.
No. Although part one is a bit strident in tone, don't let that put you off. It's a sober and well researched analysis of how a democratic economy can be (and has been) enacted. Rational and Emperical
I read the first part, I enjoyed it - some of the history I knew, but was good to remember - took some time to read properly and to think about though
No doubt the right are in the ascendency - they have grabbed the opportunity in a changing the world while the left was/is learning how not to become an authoritarian ideology. The day to day 'working class' (or poor) has been left uneducated by the system that failed them, and are therefore easy fodder for the right wing easy answers. That is not to say that we should repeat the mistake and provide easy answers for ourselves - we should grab the rational wing, stick to science and oppose the religious - don't emulate them.
Good question - there is a place for a caring answer, but only with a reasonable system in place - I ask these questions on the Social Contract all the time to deafening silence: What are the principles we all agree on? What are the key problems of modern life? Socialism remains a reasonable ideal to start from, because it is intrinsically cooperative as opposed to the self-orientated right wing. There has to be a place for both though. Any solution without finding an accord between these sides is going to fail. People who have made money, want to enjoy the fruits of their labour and without them no election can be won. With 70% property ownership we need to recognise the need to tread carefully if attempting to grab the 'change' vote.
[The left's] adherence to undemocratic, top-down and fundamentally anti-working class methods.
The left's reluctance to embrace freedom because it might limit their authoritarian tendencies are evident. It implies that there is no trust of the people, and without that there can be no cooperation.
We all just want a system that works first and foremost, and it shouldn't be beyond us to work one out. We can apply our brains the same as anyone else but only if we accept the need to cooperate rather than being at war. There is no doubt that when sovereignty passed from monarch to parliament it was a natural evolution towards popular sovereignty, but it has been stopped and we are all victims of this evolutionary red light.
They saw the working class as a potential winning horse in history, albeit one that needed the firm hand of a middle class jockey.
Stereotypes are so dramatic.
The question is whether the contract was entered into freely or not - maybe there is more, but that is a basic. So long as the contract is freely entered into, that is a reasonable minimum. We all are slaves if you perceive life as a trap! In other words, if you look for invisible enemies, you will always find them.
That quote by Keynes says it all - he recognises the oppression and yet due to the lack of education the system has provided even on a basic level, he refuses to consider the idea of reform.... He was right that our system is still basically oppressive and therefore violent and in rebellion. This won't change until the sovereignty issue is dealt with. The more anger there is, the tighter the authoritarians will grip.
The article rightly points out that it was the left who handed in a state monopoly to their successors after WW2. This is another problem - London is everything now and even in law London local authorities are now treated differently to the rest of the country (see the Localism Act). As good an example of privilege as exists.
Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Friedman
Only makes sense if applied to a society where the sovereignty has passed from the archaic rulers to the eventual sovereign: the people. Systems cannot be based on oppression, people just rebel which is anathema to cooperation. Every society needs an idealistic basis before anything else -agreed principles enabling the people rather than seeing them as a resource to control. Everyone has to be equal in law, with the freedom to speak as they like, look where they like and decide if they want to talk to invisible friends or enemies, or not.
I would suggest that having checks against uncontrolled power is a reasonable position, that is what regulation is for, but the systems need to be logical and efficient. Interesting that both Friedman and Popper came to the same conclusion about this need
If anything explains the parting of ways between the left and the working class, then, at bottom, it is this: the adherence by the left to undemocratic, top-down and fundamentally anti-working class methods.
It is as if the 'working class' are the only people allowed to suffer. How about the poor? Is that too broad? By emphasising that group, anyone who is not a member feels omitted from that passage and will look to another party to represent their greivances.
Mont Pelerin - Hayek getting everyone together for a chin wag.
Shows the need to cooperate rather than abuse each other for fun.
