Re: seriously? Is that what the level of discourse here.. Archived Message
Posted by dereklane on September 6, 2019, 2:55 pm, in reply to "Re: seriously? Is that what the level of discourse here.."
. If it fails, what have we lost, except perhaps our innocence? The problem is, how many times must we 'lose our innocence' before realising that pinning future hopes on hopeless things is merely an excellent time waster? I've seen enough in terms of human behaviour to know that those reliant on the concept of a good King tend to be just the type who indeed sit on their hands. Democracy is relegated to a once every few years affair. If we want democracy with a socialist flavour (or any kind of for the people flavour), we are not finding it in Westminster any time soon. Ask me what else I or anyone proposes and I will say we need the courage to ditch what doesn't work before we will find the courage to find something that does. Nor am I the first to voice such a concept. It was also a concept very much in the wheelhouse of your moniker, of course. For me, the referendum was a litmus test of that idea; a lot voted for leaving not because of racist ideology but because of the recognition that two shitty masters puts us in double bondage. That progressive concept has been eroded over the last few years, because that what establishment is best at; making the people thankful for the bonds. The whole freedom or security concept seems to be lost forever at this point. We can't possibly lose or control Westminster in favour of the majority if we can't even countenance losing an institution less than a tenth it's age. As it is, we are once again in the quest for a benevolent King. It may be more sophisticated this time round (corbyn himself may be a good man unlike Obama or Blair ), but party politics is no one man show, and like Ramsay McDonald, stands every chance of achieving electoral victory to be ousted and replaced. As such, a timely reminder from history, I would say. Cheers
|
|