... appeal to the disaffected, those unable to collaborate with the majority, she attracts those who yearn for a land where they can indulge Marxist fantasies.
Of particular reverence to her are the failing Caribbean and South American countries of Cuba and Venezuela, both very left wing socialist, both dictatorships, both of which fit the Orwellian nightmare of centralised control.
Hers is the world of the oxymoron “decentralised socialism”, the political nonsense that might have been written by Edward Lear; the constitutional objective that has never been defined by her political party, the constitutional conundrum that the ex-chair of Plaid fails to comprehend. For her, it is the monumental example of “Smoke and Mirrors” that covers her Marxist agenda.
Hers is the world of the oxymoron “decentralised socialism”, the political nonsense that might have been written by Edward Lear; the constitutional objective that has never been defined by her political party, the constitutional conundrum that the ex-chair of Plaid fails to comprehend. For her, it is the monumental example of “Smoke and Mirrors” that covers her Marxist agenda.
Now the others in the race for this Wales poison political chalice are a different bag of ferrets.
They do not have an extreme left wing ideology driving their politics, they sit somewhere between the Lib Dems and the Labour Party, at times they might be mistaken for members of these middle of the road groups as they wield their "debating épée" at the Assembly, ...
...although each brings the separatist baggage with them, the electorate don’t quite believe them, they are the acceptable face of Plaid ...
...although each brings the separatist baggage with them, the electorate don’t quite believe them, they are the acceptable face of Plaid ...
"the constitutional conundrum that the ex-chair of Plaid fails to comprehend."
ReplyDeleteI think you should re-read what I wrote. I didn't say that I failed to comprehend it, merely that socialism and decentralism can sometimes lead in different directions, and that it can be difficult to bridge the two in practice. Disagreeing with me is your right, which I respect, but this is misrepresentation.
Is it, I wonder ...
ReplyDelete... it was your "As a result, to an extent, those of us who advocate decentralist socialism have got away with it for years without really having to put the flesh on the bones. Plaid’s review has recommended doing some work on that – I look forward to seeing it, but suspect that it will be easier to recommend than to achieve."
and ...
"That need for a strong central redistributive policy is really the reason for supporting the continuation of EU structural funding. It doesn’t make the EU a socialist organisation; far from it. But it’s hard to see how a fully decentralist model works to enable fairness without such supranational structures. And that creates a dichotomy."
... if you think I have misrepresented you I am sorry, but how else would I interpret the conflict of opinion I read on your words.
There is a document that describes "A Decentralist Manifesto" by Ralph Borsodi, this is such a perfect description of the path Plaid would take if it dared, you can read it at ...
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/borsodi-ralph_decentralist-manifesto.html
... this particular document describes decentralist socialism perfectly, and to be frank, it could carry this old liberal with it, except for one very small part ... where it describes :
"This manifesto is submitted to the thoughtful and concerned men and women of the world urging them to assume the intellectual and moral leadership of mankind in order to replace those who have demonstrated incompetence, lack of vision, greed, bigotry and brutality."
... take away the irrelevance and you are left with :
"... assume the intellectual and moral leadership of mankind in order to replace ..."
... no democracy you see, something that is dear to me.
John,
ReplyDeleteMost - probably all - political philosophies can sometimes lead one in contrary directions at the same time. Nothing at all strange about that. But pointing it out is not the same as 'failing to comprehend', which is the leap you made. Simple as that.
John,
ReplyDeleteI do not doubt your integrity, you are one of the few in recent times who have demonstrated in public an integrity we look for in our politicians, you should be at our Assembly ....
My leap of understanding is a leap that many will make, and whilst I can accept without reservation your explanation, Plaid have this unworkable objective, decentralise socialism, no amount of dressing up in community or the co-operative movement will hide the political direction this group wish to take Wales, it heralds direct political intervention in the way people live their lives the Berlin wall was reduced to rubble by people sick of such intervention.
For the record, there is no reference to a plural society in the constitution of Plaid Cymru.
You are too kind by far.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that there is not a lot on which we'd agree politcally, though. However, I'll make two brief points on your response, if I may.
As a general rule (although it's not always possible), I try and avoid use of 'ism's, because they mean different things to different people. Clearly, you have a definition in mind about what 'socialism' is, as evidenced by phrases such as "direct political intervention in the way people live their lives", and your reference to the fall of the Berlin Wall. On that definition, I'd probably join you in rejecting it; but it isn't the only definition. A debate about substance can't really happen if people aren't talking about the same thing, and we are obviously not.
Secondly, your comment about a 'plural society'. As I recall, there was a claim during the Assembly election that Labour were going to close hospitals and the basis for the claim was that their manifesto didn't say that they weren't. That was plain silly - failing to say you won't do something isn't the same as saying that you will. Similarly, I feel, the absence of any explicit stated support for a plural society (and we could probably have another significant debate about what that means as well!) cannot be interpreted as being opposition to one.