Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
after all, which prime minister embodied the 'Do It Yourself' spirit more than The Iron Lady herself?
punk's been dead for years.
Thatcher embodied big corporations and globalisation, with the marginalisation of the guy on the street - the exact opposite of DIY culture and communities.
Nice try though.
That's a pretty bold claim.
Putting out releases or putting on gigs, often at cost price, never with the aim of making money, often doing it in your spare time, fostering a tight-knit community, bringing music to as many people as possible.
Despite her claims, no government did more for the disenfranchisement of people, the breaking up of communities, the concentration of wealth and power into a few hands, the increase in inequality, the removal of opportunity than hers.
Leaving people to rot does not constitute fostering a DIY culture.
Not relying on or expecting others to do or pay for things for you. That's Thatcherism.
You imply that that DIY and limited success go hand in hand. Who says you can't be DIY and wildly successful at the same time? They're not mutually exclusive.
would judge number of people included as a wild success, not amount of profit generated. But you know this already, why the fuck am I replying, whyy
Any Thatcher wasn't a musician.
It's about shamshing shit up and infuriating people.
Which is what Thatcher did.
There are others that don't involve being a cunt
I can see the connection with Thatcher there.
is that you can bend "Thatcherism" to mean whatever you want it to. Especially if you're willing to retrospectively analyse every single consequence of Thatcher's political decisions as being central to her political ideology.
Being a free market liberal =/= a desire to see marginalisation of poor people or a distillation of culture in the name of profit.
To attribute all of the mess caused by it to Thatcher and Thatcher alone seems a touch outdated though, seeing as 4 PMs have now succeeded her and have done nothing to redress the balance and to offer positive solutions to the bits of economic policy launched in the 1980s that have now gone wrong, or should be discredited.
Raanraals thising all of my posts isn't helping my leftist cred really, is it.
(Although, in all seriousness, I fail to see what I have said in this thread which marks me out as a Tory)
it's totally false to suggest that we only know the results of her ideology because of hindsight.
AND rhetoric. Things like privatisation and the selling off of council houses, and the running down of the NHS and schools were only ever going to have one consequence, and that was the aggregation of wealth and power up the population, and into the hands of a smaller number of people and a group of large corporations.
And you're off with your last paragraph - free market liberalism is about seeing everything in terms of profitability, not value.
And we'll have to agree to disagree on the stuff above it.
We're dealing with very complex over-arching economic and social systems here. It's unlikely to the point of impossibility she could have fully foreseen the consequences of her government's policies.
You never saw Maggie and Vivienne Westwood in the same room, did you?
Think about it.
you're onto something bro
it's all connected.
is an A+++ trolling tactic but a D- actual opinion to have
she was the antithesis of it.
She was anti-individual except in the business sense.
She kept talking about individualism whilst trying to eliminate any alternatives to the hedgemony.
She only wanted one power structure, she could not abide people doing without government, whilst saying that she did.
SHe objected to the there being devolved power, in that she did want 'the people' to own the means of thier own water supply, sewage system, transport, power generation and distribution, even though these capital investment heavy things had already been paid for by the public, instead she wanted corporations to own them and so harnessed the lie of individualism to involve many people in the dirty little scheme to hive off what I AND EVERY OTHER BRITISH PERSON OWNED to corporations (it being obvious that the indiviiduals that brought shares would sell them until big corps got the controlling share for a button.
she hated punks and punks hated her. SHe hated any group of people that did not want the same as her or that which she was trying to appeal to.
She did not want people to be or feel free.
She did not believe in common land ownership or 'unowned land'
blah blah blah
or agree with it, if it warrants it
discussing Thatcher, her political philosophy, her premiership, her legacy, etc.
I don't need to regurgitate any of those opinions or analyses in this thread. I'm sure you, ohgood and others have read a lot of it and let the opinions that don't paint her as an evil witch who destroyed the social fabric of Britain irk you mightily.
If you act like a bell
Christ. Some people.
As I say, there's not much we're going to be able to say on DiS that hasn't been said by a commentator somewhere in the last week.
I'm sure lots of us have better things to do than rehash the Thatcher debate.
I think it is an interesting topic.
to engage fully, I'm afraid.
too busy masturbating to Japanese water sports porn to answer it though.
I like you Raanraals.
I dont hate thatcher to p*** you off.
Im baffled as to why nice would like her, want to defend her so much (unless its in a misguided liverpool fan feeling he has to suppost suarez)
Im baffled as to why so many people like her, unfortunately such is my regard of her that their liking her actually lessend my regard of her supporters, I dont think it should be like that, but there it is, I prefer to think that she pulled the wool over peoples eyes, assisted by the vast polarization that she provoked, causing people to have to go on one side or another and willing to accept some of her worse attitudes because of the overall side that they feel they fell on.
But I think she was a horrid abhorent human being, who rode roughshod over humanity and human feeling (in herself as well.....yes I am sure that she did it to herself).
I dont think that the vast majority of tories (cold hearted b******s, that you are ;D ) deserve to be tainted with the same revulsion that she invoked in me and others.
I'm just saying that their are other, valid (whatever you think), views regarding her political philosophy, achievements and legacy.
I would never belittle your strong hatred of her, but it's not as black and white as you're making out.
I like a man who remembers his grudges ;D
but taken overall, which is how thatcher did things, with an overall intent, then it does become more black and white, like I said she polarized things so it was almost obligatory to be 'in a camp'. At the time it felt like she had declared war against us, which has a tendancy to promote polarization.
Serious question : don't you think moving in punk circles in the '80s has conditioned you towards hating everything Maggie stood for, just as much as conservatives are conditioned to respect her policies?
Unless you were a particularly old punk, you probably weren't massively politically aware in the '70s. A lot of older folks who I've spoke to that remember it well don't paint a great picture - not knowing if you'd have electricity on any particular night because workers' unions were striking every other week, all leading up to the so-called 'Winter of Discontent' where 999 calls weren't being answered, the dead weren't being buried, rubbish piling up on the streets. It sounded like it was tending towards anarchy to all intents and purposes. I'd like to think I'm generally on the left, but not that far over, and I bet most wouldn't choose that over Thatcher's Britian if it came to it.
not the subsequent Labour ones. It has to be said that the majority of the economic problems that dogged the end of the Heath government and the Labour governments of the 1970s were as a direct result of the oil crisis in 1973 - not necessarily the policies of the UK governments at the time. The so-called Winter of Discontent wasn't quite as extreme as it was made out to be in the press either - compared to the industrial action that followed under Thatcher it was quite small (http://charts-datawrapper.s3.amazonaws.com/yzpy7/fs.html), even more so when you take into account the removal of several million people from the workforce through her policies (http://charts-datawrapper.s3.amazonaws.com/pUNSF/fs.html).
While it didn't happen in the 1970s, the UK did descend into anarchy in the early-mid 1980s, with the race and poverty riots that struck most UK cities throughout 1981-1983, and the battles of the miners' strikes a couple of years later.
It's very easy, if you lived in an area that wasn't badly affected by her policies, and if you solely went by the evidence and folklore presented in the modern press, to believe that people would have preferred to live in the 1980s than the 1970s, but the 1970s was a relatively benign period in comparison to the turbulence and division of the 1980s.
One big spike in 1983, on average it doesn't look like there were more days lost to strike in the 80s than the 70s.
Full data set here:
as it is usually portrayed in the press. The difference between the two is not that significant (an average of about 1100 days per year up to may 79 and 900 days per year from then until Dec 89), and that includes for the supposed boom of the mid-late 80s, and doesn't account for upwards of 3 million workers being removed from unionised industries via redundancy (eg http://charts-datawrapper.s3.amazonaws.com/Wudfj/fs.html)
If you look at the figures for days lost to strike action per worker, they actually go up during the early 1980s, as a result of the reduction in the number of people employed.
you wouldnt describe her as 'thatcher the libertarian' though, now would you?
Live and let live? was that her motto? hardly
I've avoided reading anything in the newpapers about her recently
Now, I’m no fan of Thatcher, and I truly believe that the consequences of her actions and ideologies have been catastrophic in any number of ways. However, I think there might be something in this.
Is there not some sort of structural equivalence between the removal of the state in favour of rampant individualism and the removal of large structures of distribution and promotion in favour of a DIY ethic.
They don’t make instinctual bedfellows at all, but I do think it is interesting that political or economic individualism is given such differing treatment to the symbolic lone author in the bedsit, relying on meritocracy and talent to earn a crust.
soon you'll be claiming the Big Society isn't just a nonsense buzz-phrase that the Conservatives made up to sound like they had at least one idea.
ITT etc etc
Thatcher wrote it using letters cut out of newspapers, photocopied it in Grantham library and handed it out at gigs. You remember, it had that free Tadpole Tebbits flexidisc on the cover.
</shelf life on DIS>
(I suppose that if any of them didn't then they were wise to have kept this from me, or they would have been out)
I wouldnt have done that, I wasnt a monster, Im not like her, I would instead, have just convinced them
and by demonstration
"let me take you by the hand and lead you through the streets of london, I'll show you something, that'll make you change your mind"
The stark difference is between entrepreneurial capitalism (as practiced by so many people who have started small businesses after being awakened by punk rock) and market-apologist investment capitalism of the sort described by stock markets, franchise businesses and other kinds of speculation. The two are as different as punk rock and not-punk rock. The aphorisms designed by business schools to help drones succeed in the mainstream investor-owned businesses all ring hollow to entrepreneurs, who see the rippling effect of every decision they make radiating out into a community of which they are a vested part.
While it may not be the most important effect of punk rock, creating businesses of this type is at least a noteworthy side effect, making the world more decent and generous as it does.
so says Stiv Albini