a) Loss of the competitiveness of the free market (both against other countries which have privitised industry, and internally) depresses the productivity of the economy, which means less jobs.

b) Government is far more vulnerable to union bullying than private industry, hence artificially high wages which means, although those in work get more, that jobs are lost.

Good points.The job creation thing is a good point I guess I hadnt thought of that.

I just think there is bad and good about privatisation in general.
The point you make about the economy is a good one, some industries have done well with privitisation here, its shown with the way that British Telecom seemed to thrithe under privatisation in this country.

However the way the Rail network was privatised seemed to actual cause chaos initially rather than improve the service, or generate jobs.

However dont nationalised industries employ alot of people too?Wouldnt alot of those jobs go if they privatised as the newly formed companies sought to streamline operations, you often saw this in the UK.
Also as I said before, I think the standard of Life in France is far better the workers seem to have more say in how things are run.Of course this has its bad sides ( strikes, job losses) as you mentioned but it also means that there is more equality between worker and management.The Unions seem to have more rights in all sorts of areas.
Whereas for better or worse we have a different working culture in this country probably even more so since Thatcher....

So I accept that nationalisation may be part of the reason for the high unemployment rates but there must be other social, polictial and economic reasons why its currently high in France.

The UK is inferior to France but I'm at a loss at what this has to do with an EU constitution. It's not like the UK would become like France if such a thing was passed.

The European constitution was an attempt by the political and business elite of the major European countries (Germany France, and the UK) to consolidate their power, build up a unified European military, drive wages down, and bust unions. Basically become like the US then.

The fact that far right groups opposed it only shows how short-sighted they are. Yeah, theres a small possibility that Turkish Muslim immigration might increase, but had they looked at the big picture they should have supported it. And these impotent, reformist "socialist" parties who opposed it did so for completely imbecilic reasons.

The UK is and always has been the nation most ripe for fascism due to the country's large percentage of petit-bourgeois elements with narrow, easily controlled political interests; a parasitic and unorganized proletariat closely allied to their masters and virtually unorganisable to the working-class movement; the Labour Party and trade unions' denial of the class struggle and preaching of "the community above classes"; journals of the type of the Daily Mail (since 1934 openly fascist); a woefully undereducated populace; the infamous "Unwritten Constitution" which can be turned in any direction desired at a moment's notice to suit the emergency needs of the bourgeois dictatorship; the British bourgeoisie which has been trained for generations on the basis of its rule of India, Ireland and the colonial empire to methods of violence and despotic domination and at the same time as on the basis of parliamentary and electioneering humbug in Britain to the technique of mass-deception; and the sedulously instilled myths of law and order.

Britain, it is obvious, is not diametrically opposed to fascism, but is on the contrary most closely prepared and adapted for fascism. You would be well to study a little the history of the British bourgeoisie for the past three centuries, which in bloody violence could hardly be equalled by any ruling class since the Roman Empire.

So to suggest that if a European constitution would pass, the UK would become like socialist France merely illustrates the dreadful level of education and discourse of the British proletariat. If such a thing passed, it would be much more accurate to look to Nazi Germany as an example of the not-so-distant future of the world's most backward feudal nation.

good post. I wouldn't think there's a danger of this country becoming something like-socialist-France.

But Nazi Germany as 'more accurate'?

But no-one did suggest that passing the EU constitution would lead to becoming like France. The conversation about the political culture of France started as a tangent from the idea that part of the reason they rejected the constitution might be to do with so-called 'left-wing' reasons. If you actually read back the comments in this thread, you'd see my reservations over the constitution had nothing to do with France.

As for Britain being the country most ripe for fascism, that's just not true. Yes, it has an embedded societal hierarchy, etc, but fascism isn't about traditional authoritarianism - it's a new form of control. It's far more dangerous than a few doddery unelected aristocrats in the House of Lords. Fascism doesn't sit will with traditional British liberty, whether you like the British concept of liberty or not, nor its individualist tradition or its scepticism of grand theories and over-intrusive government. It sits far better with the continental view of collectivism and large state, hence the fact that it succeeded there more. It's no coincidence that you can find proto-fascist ideas in Hegel, the main philosophical influence on Marx. Yes, Britain has some common reactionary views, etc, but they just sit far more with right-wing conservatism than actual fascism (unless, of course, you fail to make a distinction, in which case you're being very narrow-minded). Inside that right-wing tabloid press has always been a streak of 'the government shouldn't tell me what to do'.

Also, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about calling people badly educated. You don't actually know who we are.

The illusion of the "alien" character of fascism in the "democratic" countries of Western Europe and America is commonly presented as based on the supposed peculiarities and uniqueness of the "national character" and "institutions" in these countries. "Britain will never tolerate fascism; it is foreign to our whole traditions and outlook." The same myth was also current in Germany, where up to the last the formula that "Germany is not Italy" was unweariedly repeated.

Further, you have fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of fascism. Its not "big government". Fascism is about little to no government, much in the way that conservative capitalist parties preach "smaller government" and greater corporate control. Communism is "big government". So the fact that you suggest (quite rightly) that British politicians have always advocated "smaller government" only illustrates my point.

Fascism is not some revolutionary new form of control as you seem to suggest. Its identical to the current system in the UK and other capitalist countries except the state has an official policy of terror on the workers. The businesses would continue to operate as they always had, though. This can easily be seen in Germany where the same businesses were in operation before, during, and after the Nazis. Obviously their profits increased during the Nazi reign.

As for "Government shouldnt tell me what to do", thats certainly not an anti-fascist statement. Its an anti-communist statement. So it sits well with these "right wing" publications. No offense, but you've demonstrated some serious confusion on fundamental political issues.

I think we're having problems here because you're starting from a Marxist definition/understanding of fascism, whereas I'm starting from a conventional political theory understanding of it. Your picture of Communism and Fascism as diametrically opposed is a bogus one, and so is your view of fascism as a logical extension of conservative capitalism. Fascist economies were not especially free market, and with state controlling things like arts output and leisure time and providing standardised goods for everyone (VW cars in Germany, for instance), I just fail to see how fascism can possibly be called big government. The continuing existence of business under Nazi Germany is one tiny aspect.

The view that our current system is fascist in all but overt recognition of its aims is a trivialisation and a dangerous generalisation. It's typically of the Marxist position to view anything non-Marxist as exactly the same, and the assertion that we live in something close to fascism is an insult to those who suffered at the hands of actual fascism. Features of fascism such as the underlying anti-rationalist philosophy, the desire for war "to build national character", the need to bring up youth in statist organisations, the Social Darwinism and direct persecution of minorities, etc, are just totally alien to any mainstream political phenomenon, be it capitalist, conservative, liberal, or even democratic socialist.

And stop patronising me. I have actually studied these theories in some depth. When you say I've demonstrated "confusion", all you mean is I don't subscribe to your specific way of viewing political theory.

Youre the one who suggested fascism was "big government". Of course "big" and "small" government are just euphamisms that conservatives like to use, but Im using their definitions here.

And Im not using my definitions of political theory (Im a gen-u-ine political scientist, by the way) Im using the generally agreed upon definitions of political theory. People who rage against "big government" are invariably conservatives and its fundamentally an anti-communist statement.

As for fascism versus "liberal democracy" theyre fundamentally the same. Both are capitalist, pro-business,dictatorships of the bourgeoises, etc. Fascism just removes any worker "rights", bust unions, and have an official policy of terror.

To suggest that communism and fascism are similar illustrates a painfully uneducated opinion on the matter (but sadly a common one).

If you're coming from a marxist viewpoint, my understanding was that Communism was the final stage of history, after the revolutionary Socialist stage and that you had no government as governments are simply a tool of the economic elité.

But if you're not coming from a marxist viewpoint then I'll take your word for it.

But all the above is clearly coming from a Marxist view of political theory, not a conventional one. The fact is the vast majority of theorists would back my view (that communism, or more accurately the stages before the final stage of communism, and fascism, though clearly fundamentally different in all sorts of ways, share some similarities) than yours (that liberal democracy and fascism not only share similarities but are fundamentally the same). You can patronise me all you like and assert than I'm spouting misconceptions but you simply can't change this fact. To say I'm painfully uneducated on the issue (which just isn't true, incidentally) suggests that so are 99% of academics. I think what you mean is I don't agree with you - like those 99% of academics.

The fact is you've completely ignored the substance of my previous post. Show me how fascism and liberal democracy converge, or how fascism entails little to no government on these points:

1. The broadly neo-classical/neo-liberal economic views of modern liberal democracy vs the centralised, albeit broadly capitalist, state planning and 'corporate state' model of fascism

2. The complete censorship, state owning of media, arrest of political dissenters outside the rule of law of fascism vs the occasionally authoritarian but broadly liberal attitude of liberal democracy

3. The philosophical influence of Nietzschean anti-rationalism and natural emotion in fascism vs the extreme rationalisation and denial of worth in emotion of liberalism

4. The overt 'war as healthy for the nation' imperialism of fascism vs the either non-interventionist or only interventionist for motives of regime change, at best covertly imperialistic, attitude of liberal democracy

5. The Social Darwinism and anti-semitism of fascism vs the non-racist consensus of liberal democracy

6. The involvement of state in all personal activities down to leisure, youth organisations, etc of fascism vs broadly laissez-faire attitude to personal affairs of liberal democracy

7. The one-party system and banning of elections and other political parties of fascism vs the (albeit imperfect) democracy of liberal democracy

I could go on and on and on but I think you get the point.

Like so many Marxists you take a small number of similarities and make a wild generalisation to suggest anything that isn't Marxist as the same. I could just as easily say that Marxism and Thatcherism were the same on the grounds that both contain an adversarial model of ideas and forces, both have elements of puritanism and state paternalism on private 'moral' issues and both seek to prevent sustained uprising against the state. But I wouldn't, because there are all sorts of other areas which illustrate the difference.

Even if I were to accept the Marxist viewpoint, the most you could possibly get away with would be saying that liberal democracy and fascism 'amounted' to the same thing, in that neither deliver what the Marxist wants. But the suggestion that they're actually the same is just plain incomprehensible. It just isn't true that living under Nazi Germany was an experience akin to living in Britain today. What you're saying is that if the Axis had won World War 2, the system we lived under now would have been much the same. It's just patently untrue!

Im not coming from any "marxist viewpoint". Im coming from the "educated viewpoint". Not once have I considered myself a "Marxist". And the "communism" Im refering to is Stalinist socialism. Not some kind of deal with no currency and all that. The idea that socialism leads to communism has long been debunked. It leads back to capitalism. So one must fight directly for communism.

The fact is that nobody with even the slightest bit of knowledge on political theory equates fascism with communism. Thats the propaganda, but no legitamate political scientist believes that. Theyre on opposite ends of the political spectrum as even conservatives will acknowledge.

Theres a fascist dictatorship under fascism and a proletarian dictatorship under communism. Thats probably why you think theyre so similar. But youre neglecting to see that theres a capitalist dictatorship under capitalism. So this is a non-factor. No serious political academic would suggest what youre saying.

As for your points...

1. There is no central state planning of the economy under fascism. The businesses operate in the same manner than they did under capitalism. Some businesses fail, others succeed. People can open new businesses.

2. People are arrested for opposing the fascist governments not unlike how theyre arrested for opposing capitalist governments. Any concession to the workers under capitalism are temporary ones. Its an effort to prevent any kind of progressive movement.

3. I have no idea what youre on about. Nazis subscribed to the "mystery of patriotism" and other things that were not scientifically sound, much in the same way that conservatives today will preach about patriotism, religion, etc. All things that rational people reject.

4 and 5 can be dispensed of later because this is getting repetative.

6. I have no idea why you keep insisting that fascist governments are so involved in social matters. There was a Hitler Youth organization. Big deal. Thats the only example I can think of. Theres also the Boy Scouts which is a Catholic thing. The groups are pretty similar, by the way.

7. Theres only one party under fascism much in the way theres only one party under capitalism. You can vote for one rich white capitalist in a suit or the other rich white capitalist in a suit. Thats not a choice. Its all the same party. Voting is a waste of time.

Capitalism is just an intermediate point to fascism. Concessions are made only as long as possible. When necessary, a capitalist government becomes a fascist government. And the transition is easy. Theres no revolution as there was, for instance, in 1917 Russia. Its a simple process going from capitalist to fascism and very little is changed.

If the UK was fascist, your day to day life would not change. Youd go to work or whatever you do at the same place. Less workers rights, no striking, etc but essentially it would be the same.

But if the UK would become something akin to 1917 Russia, things would change drastically. Everything would be done differently from top to bottom. Liberal democracy is not a third option in the political spectrum. Theres only two. Capitalism is an intermediate form of fascism. Or if you prefer, fascism is an extreme version of capitalism.

I don't think we're ever going to agree here, so we may as well leave it. Suffice to say that I think you're viewing everything in such incredible black-and-white (i.e. all government that supports capitalism is the same) as to distort matters. I also think you're manipulating your supposed position of authority to suggest that all academics would agree with you - it's just clear that the majority of academics would not see fascism and liberal democracy as facets, or version of, or whatever it is you're suggesting, the same thing. I've never said fascism and communism were the same - I've said there were a few similarities, which most academics would not dispute. Of course in greater depth all these theories are extremely different, but that includes liberal democracy and fascism.

And I'm tired of you using "uneducated" as a euphemism for "not agreeing with you". Despite you repeatedly calling me "uneducated" I'm not just talking based on concepts I've vaguely heard about - I've studied all these ideas in quite substantial detail. As have you, I'm sure - but we disagree, and that's your choice. But to suggest that my view is totally uneducated or has no academic backing is an attempt to manipulate you're "I'm a genuine political scientist" card, because you know as well as I do that it's not true. OK, so you disagree with my viewpoint - fair cop - but you can't claim that no academics would support it. It just isn't true that anything but a fringe of radical academics would support some of your statements, eg "The UK is the country most ripe for fascism", "Fascism is about little to no government" (how on earth do you square that with Mussolini himself saying, "Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"?), "Liberal democracy and fascism are exactly the same", etc. To say that anyone who doesn't support these statements is uneducated rules out the vast majority of academics. You can't simply define "uneducated" as "not your view" - that's amazingly arrogant, totally arbitrary/unproven and anyone could do it but they don't because they realise that people disagree and it's enormously tiresome.

The fact is, in political theory, you can find a few facts to back up any far-fetched theory, but it isn't coherent if there are all sorts of other exceptions to the supposed 'rule'. A lot of different ideologies fall prey to calling anything except their own ideology the same, because, for example, the anti-capitalist stakes everything on capitalism and consequently all ideologies that embrace capitalism are "the same", and so forth.

Anyhow, this is horribly off the topic of the thread, and might I point out again, as I did in my first reply, the whole tangent is based on a false premise - you assumed that someone said that joining the constitution would lead to being like France, which no-one actually said.

Yeah, 'fraid so.
Locked.

edit: This discussion can of course be carried on in a new thread, by all means.