Posted on 01/23/2010 8:52:42 AM PST by C19fan
The only alternative, say these hard-headed realists, is to allow the market to find its own level. Rejoice for the great modern British success stories such as Tesco, the third largest retailer in the world; or Dyson, the superb vacuum-cleaner manufacturer; or Burberry, our chic rain-coat and luggage-maker. Why all this fuss about an American company taking over the most famous firm of English chocolate and cocoa-makers?
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Typical Marxist screed.
Except Cadbury made money and had good working conditions. Neither of which is in the Marxist playbook.
Good! Now that thery’re technically an American company, does this mean they need to set up some idiotic “diversity development” dept? Sure the quality of their products goes down the tubes, but who cares as long as all “underrepresented” groups are represented.
His closing statement equates to government takeover - and sadly he does not get the irony : *taking over* or *buying out* only happens when the seller has a price.
___________________________________________________________
None of our politicians has a clue what to do to heal the ‘broken’ society which we can see all around us — the rising crime, the loneliness, the wretchedness of our inner-cities. But the Cadbury deal with Kraft shows us where the root of this problem lies.
It reminds us, with horrible clarity, that we are all the victims of ‘hostile take-over’ of one kind or another.
None of us would have chosen for our society to be ‘taken over’ by forces which were so inimical to strong family life, to happiness, to morality.
But it happened. And with this, which feels like the last nail in the coffin of poor old Britain, we are bound to feel very sad indeed.
Except Cadbury made money and had good working conditions. Neither of which is in the Marxist playbook.
Blaming the destruction of enterprise on Thatcher
and not on Marxist Labor is screed
It's Marxist ONLY in as much as the author has a desire of a kind of Christian charity....to be enforced by the government.
I was following in agreement until he said, "it would have been possible for the Government to intervene to prevent..."
The irony is that the Cadbury's, Wedgewoods, and Guinesses he remembers all operated in a MUCH less regulated environment than (even the EVEEEL) Margaret Thatcher years--which he blames for allowing corporate greed to destroy Britain.
Genuine Christians exercise genuine Christian charity...voluntarily. This applies not only to the captains of industry, but to the workers themselves. Self control makes external social controls unneeded--why 100 years ago, you didn't have the disgusting drunks and drug addicts in the streets there, as they have today.
This is a problem libertarian/conservative types like myself often don't address, namely that a godless society does still act godlessly, when they have the liberty to do so....
As Francis Shaeffer predicted 40 years ago, reduce the self control of a Christian conscience, and society still needs controls....and that comes in the form of heavy handed government. Is it any wonder that THE most secularized places on earth have the most socialistic/statist/autocratic governments?
When people reject the real God, they will slowly but surely tend to worship the next biggest entity, the god of government--which ultimately is a much harsher master.
By the way, Cadbury has a really cool website. It’s one of those animated 360 things where you can move your mouse cursor around to move the scene as you look for your cursor arrow to turn into a hand so you can click and see what’s there.. Whatever... Cool site.
http://www.aglassandahalffullproductions.com/
“When people reject the real God, they will slowly but surely tend to worship the next biggest entity, the god of government—which ultimately is a much harsher master.”
I disagree. They will worship worse. Read John 19:15.
I just try to ignore those middle paragraphs where the know-nothings try to explain things according to some bias.
“Self control makes external social controls unneeded—why 100 years ago, you didn’t have the disgusting drunks and drug addicts in the streets there, as they have today.”
I wonder what all those victorian temperance societies were doing fighting against an apparently non-existant social evil all those years ago?
I consider myself a British Conservative, but Thatcher’s brand of ‘Conservatism’ (actually she was more of a neo-whig radical than a conservative in the true sense) tore societies and communities apart. By closing down much most of Britain’s coalmines and heavy industries in the name of a radically liberal economic policy which mainly benefited the financial and service sectors in the South, she reduced many once relatively prosperous and stable Northern, Scottish and Welsh mining and industrial towns and villages into heroin-drenched slumholes full of unemployment, despair and crime....
If I understand you correctly,
Thatcher alone destroyed England.The other fifty years of socialism was glorious.
Neither AN Wilson nor the Daily Mail are remotely leftwing, let alone Marxist.
No, she did some things that were absolutely neccessary, but closing down all the mines in areas were towns depended on them without a care for what happened to those towns has created sinkholes, this is undeniable.
She also centralised a lot of power in London and away from local councils, which should be the ones making the most fundamental decisions about people’s lives, not some distant government far away in the nation’s capital...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.