As regular readers of my articles will know (although I noted none of my contributions ended up in the “Top 25 Most Read” list from last year; meaning some of you need to pull your socks up!), I’ve always considered left-wing politicians, policies and governments to be a force for bad in the world.
The left claimed there was widespread poverty, exploitation and other horrors which needed to be solved. Completely ignoring the lack of morals of their supporters, it was all the fault of rich people and if only everybody elected a Socialist Government then all would be well and everyone would be free from deprivation. Like magic. Those (perhaps an early version of me? a century or so ago?) pointing out that drunkenness, gonorrhoea, ten children, and indolence might be a slightly more plausible explanation for poverty were derided as cruel and heartless, so history took its course.
What happened when these sorts of problems were solved? What happened when everyone had a house, food, medical care, employment, and welfare safety-nets? I will give you a clue: working-class people started buying things – washing machines, televisions, clothing; all manner of consumer goods; and began enjoying a life which was no longer grim. Something which has continued more or less through to the present day.
But what was the reaction of left-wingers to a dramatic rise in living standards? Did they delight in ticking off a list of problems which were solved? Oh no; oh no no no siree! They complained about it.
One of the most notable examples of this was in Britain where a left-wing politician called Aneurin Bevan famously said at a Labour party conference:
…This so-called affluent society is an ugly society still. It is a vulgar society. It is a meretricious society. It is a society in which priorities have gone all wrong…that it is a vulgar society of which no decent person could be proud…
Now you need to note a couple of things: first, he was talking about poor people buying record players, vacuum cleaners and washing machines (rather than private jets), and secondly, this was a man who’d spent decades complaining about the poverty those exact same people were experiencing! This fellow was so brain-damaged it’d never occurred to him what eliminating poverty might actually mean. Breathtaking. The contempt by the left in Britain for the rising living standards of the poor continues to the present day.
It is therefore with great amusement that I watch Chloe Swarbrick seek the leadership of the Green party: her avowed mission being to eliminate inequality. There are probably lots of stupid, ignorant poor people who think this may lead to their poverty being eliminated – such is the con game the left runs. But no. Chloe’s actual mission is to basically abolish capitalism.
Her idea of “equality” is having everyone living as their ancestors did in the 16th century. As everyone is equally poor there is no inequality.
Oh the sheep to the slaughter thinking Chloe in charge will lead to prosperity for the poor.
Capitalist is a simple country boy from the deep south who seeks nothing less than the destruction of socialism and collectivism in New Zealand. This article was first published HERE
The left claimed there was widespread poverty, exploitation and other horrors which needed to be solved. Completely ignoring the lack of morals of their supporters, it was all the fault of rich people and if only everybody elected a Socialist Government then all would be well and everyone would be free from deprivation. Like magic. Those (perhaps an early version of me? a century or so ago?) pointing out that drunkenness, gonorrhoea, ten children, and indolence might be a slightly more plausible explanation for poverty were derided as cruel and heartless, so history took its course.
What happened when these sorts of problems were solved? What happened when everyone had a house, food, medical care, employment, and welfare safety-nets? I will give you a clue: working-class people started buying things – washing machines, televisions, clothing; all manner of consumer goods; and began enjoying a life which was no longer grim. Something which has continued more or less through to the present day.
But what was the reaction of left-wingers to a dramatic rise in living standards? Did they delight in ticking off a list of problems which were solved? Oh no; oh no no no siree! They complained about it.
One of the most notable examples of this was in Britain where a left-wing politician called Aneurin Bevan famously said at a Labour party conference:
…This so-called affluent society is an ugly society still. It is a vulgar society. It is a meretricious society. It is a society in which priorities have gone all wrong…that it is a vulgar society of which no decent person could be proud…
Now you need to note a couple of things: first, he was talking about poor people buying record players, vacuum cleaners and washing machines (rather than private jets), and secondly, this was a man who’d spent decades complaining about the poverty those exact same people were experiencing! This fellow was so brain-damaged it’d never occurred to him what eliminating poverty might actually mean. Breathtaking. The contempt by the left in Britain for the rising living standards of the poor continues to the present day.
It is therefore with great amusement that I watch Chloe Swarbrick seek the leadership of the Green party: her avowed mission being to eliminate inequality. There are probably lots of stupid, ignorant poor people who think this may lead to their poverty being eliminated – such is the con game the left runs. But no. Chloe’s actual mission is to basically abolish capitalism.
Her idea of “equality” is having everyone living as their ancestors did in the 16th century. As everyone is equally poor there is no inequality.
Oh the sheep to the slaughter thinking Chloe in charge will lead to prosperity for the poor.
Capitalist is a simple country boy from the deep south who seeks nothing less than the destruction of socialism and collectivism in New Zealand. This article was first published HERE
6 comments:
The poor will always be poor as both sides need them. The left need to be able to point at them, from a suitable distance, and proclaim they need help in the way of free stuff.
The right need to be able to point at them, from the same safe distance, and proclaim they just need to take responsibility for their choices.
The answer is somewhere in the middle, but is of no interest to either left or right.
As Mr Churchill said, "if capitalism is the unequal division of success, then socialism is surely the equal division of misery".
That's all the left aspire to .Equally shared misery. Ten percent of those of working age in this country currently receive a social welfare handout as their primary income.
The left needs to realise we've drunk that well dry. It is too hard these days for those who do work and struggle to get themselves and children ahead.
What is utopia for the Swarbricks, Hipkins and Sepelonis of this country ?
Everyone on a benefit ?
You can always make the poor rich by making the rich poor, but eventually the poor will spend their unearned wealth and the rich will bugger off overseas taking their money, entrepreneurship and other talents with them.
Just like Maori equality. Ie they rule everyone else is second rate and despicable.
Anon 20:29, that's why I'm leaving and taking a working lifetime of skills and savings.
I had hope with Luxon but sadly he is letting everyone one down by continuing Labour's racist policies.
See ya ........g'day Aussie mates.
Anon 4.33. Welcome 🤗 I am already in Aus. Yep, issues here but not (yet) the stupidity of NZ.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.