[Born Conservative]

Bump for later reading.

[Savage Beast]

"I became a Marxist out of sheer perversity."

Most do.

"Well...it was a mixture of conscientiousness and perversity"

For most it's a mixture of stupidity and perversity.

But, then, that does describe the Left and the Democrat Party--fools and scoundrels.

[Rummyfan]

Bump for later.

[Fledermaus]

So what made this writer a total bore?

[sageb1]

Somebody gets it. Socialism destroys human spirit.

[popdonnelly]

The self-defeating sense of solidarity that she describes has a parallel among some blacks, who consider it disloyal to the group for someone to try to improve themselves.

[blackie]

Good stuff ~ bump!

[Drango]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350141/posts

For another good read, check out this SF Chron article written by a FReeper.

[frankiep]

bump

[Rummyfan]

Being plunged into darkness several times a week gave you plenty of time to think. What kind of idyll was it that was supposed to emerge from this ugly, vindictive battle? Was left-wing politics anything more than a gloss for envious vengeance on the one hand, and—on the other—a sinister desire to control the lives of others? And, in the end, wasn’t it the achievements and the nobility of individuals, not collectives, that gave the human condition its point? The answers to those questions came to me in the darkness of that very cold British winter of 1979. Once heard, they could not be forgotten.

Good read, thanks for the post! What was it Churchill (Winston, not Ward!) said about socialism: it seeks to make everyone equally miserable?

[mondonico]

BTTT!

[mbennett203]

"Was left-wing politics anything more than a gloss for envious vengeance on the one hand, and—on the other—a sinister desire to control the lives of others?"

For some it's just naive youthful optimism. But I do get this sense from others. Like Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and gun-banners in general.

OT, but the further left someone gets the funnier I find it if they advocate gun control.

"How in the hell do you plan to bring about a revolution involving the overthrow of the government, removal (murder) of the "upper classes" (varying definitions), and making sure no one's being "insincere" (read: not properly following the dogma) without guns, comrade? With gentle persuasion?"

[truth_seeker]

Whilst in Britain, the author picked up one British trait:

Verbosity. That is irrespective, of the outcome.

I witnessed the same era, same transitions. And could tell it in one quarter the wordcount.

[George Smiley]

This article pointedly reminds me of Orwell's The Road To Wigan Pier

[Lorianne]

This is a great article! A keeper. Thanks for posting it.

[HitmanLV]

How had it come to this? Why did liberals who were supposedly advocates of egalitarianism collude in this blatantly repressive aspect of British social and political life? How did they reconcile their commitment to socialism, which I had always understood as being about the liberation of humanity, with a romanticizing of what anyone in his right mind should have seen as a cruelly inadequate and culturally degraded way of life?

That's the question, really. The best answer I can come up with is that it naturally fits their own (self serving) worldview.

That is, for the types that advocate such ideals, they envision equality - that is, most people are at a basic level of sustenance, education, profession, finance. They take it completely for granted that they are better than that and somehow deserve a higher standard of living than most of these equal people.

So for them, even if they can't come to terms with it, equality means that most people get a fairly equal standard of living (a fairly low one), but that they somehow deserve more (even though they are architects and advocates of such an egalitarian vision).

As to what drives this, I can only speculate. Academics are notably leftist, for example, and I have always felt (based on my experience in college and grad school) that they feel themselves as more intelligent than most people, and therefore more deserving, and they are unable to cope with the fact that 'lesser people' in their minds might enjoy a more successful income, a better lifestyle, have more attractive spouses, better homes, or simply have a brighter outlook on life.

For me, this isn't a matter of intelligence - it's a matter of maturity. That is to say, most of us have come to terms with the fact that some people do better than others for a variety of reasons. It doesn't compromise our ability to do well in our lives, for example, to know that someone else is doing much better.

Their failure is primarily one of maturity. "It's not fair...." has been quietly accepted by the majority of folks for thousands of years. Our best and brightest, it consistently appears, are unable or unwilling to cope with that truth.

[Deetes]

But of course ;) BTTT

[exDemMom]

This article hits the spot on so many points.

Even here in the U.S., there is a desire, mostly by leftists, to keep poor people poor. Blacks are the hardest hit by this effort, but no one of any race is spared. Growing up in such an environment is like trying to learn to swim with concrete blocks tied to one's feet--you're so busy trying not to drown that it's nearly impossible to get ahead. The pressure to remain poor is multifaceted, pressing from every direction.

It sounds like the British system is even worse.

[Owl558]

I'm sorry, but why do people think that I'm supposed to be interested in their "life's journey" to finding their true selves. This is just another example of narcisstic thinking in the extreme. The same point could have been made in, like, a third of the space if that.

Then again, I read the entire article. I guess I must blame myself.

Socialists want to control you. They always have.

[spodefly]

BTTT