I'm reading at the moment, a highly recommended book, by one of the 20th century great economists and political philosophers Frederic Hayek. It was written in his spare time between 1941 and 1944 and is called 'The road to serfdom'. He was born in Austria, but moved to the UK in the 1930's, where he became a prominent economist at The London School of Economics. He considered Communism and National Socialism as one and the same in terms of planned economies and the total loss of freedom. In his view, one of the reasons, they hate each other is where they are both trying to recruit the same type of people, from the same pool, to back their cause.
"It is disquieting to see in England and the United States today the same drawing together of forces and nearly the same contempt of all that is liberal in the old sense. 'Conservative socialism' was the slogan under which a large number of writers prepared the atmosphere in which National Socialism succeeded. It is 'conservative socialism' which is the dominant trend among us now."
With the intellectual links of 'conservative socialism' to National Socialism in the 1930's and 40's, Lizzie, might want to find another less controversial term to describe her politics. 
Yes, a great book that I read at University. Mrs Thatcher had a special leather bound copy of it that Hayek gave to her, which was in the background (but not in total control) of Thatchers policies, especially those relating to the free market. John Maynard Keynes was his economist opponent, who's words of "the main cause of slumps was excessive credit creation by the banks leading to overspending." was proved all too true in 2008.
As for National Socialism Rod, I am not at all worried that my politics
may align with that philosophy. The Utilitarianism of J.S. Mill and the "the ends justify the means" of Machiavelli and then Nietzsche’s (mad yes, but still valid) belief in the strong looking after the weak (not the evil warped interruption Hitler gave to it) can be a healthy mix in our politics of today. I believe the State should look after the genuine sick and those with special needs. It is the state's capitalist policies that work a man / women to achieve the aims of the nation, to produce the GDP required, so it is only right that the state picks up and helps those so "injured" in the process. National Socialism
could be a beneficial policy, but as we have witnessed, in the wrong hands all is twisted, and with their version, if you fall sick and frail you should be eradicated. I fail to see how any good human can accept that, but, for a time, they did!
As with all politics and philosophy it can be mixed up, interrupted, rehashed, and applied in all kinds of ways over the decades, to meet human needs of the time. As I have stated, dogma is a bad thing in politics, and all of us should consider what is needed now in the context of today, not some far off time in the past. I can see little reason personally for not being a Conservative Socialist as that is what is required now. Our society and world needs some radical changes in political application to create a truly fair and just society, whatever party badge you place on it.
The problem is now, thanks to Corbyn, there is no effective opposition. That must be a matter of serious concern in our democratic society.
Author
Topic: Theresa or Jeremy? (Read 53492 times)