“Reason is out. Emotion is in.”
A friend of mine, who is much older than me and has been a confirmed socialist since he was a teenager, always says to me whenever we get into some sort of political discussion, “JD, you have lots of facts on your side, but that’s not how I arrive at my views. Emotion has to play a big part for me.” I’ve always admired his honesty in saying this, and Johnathan Pearce nails exactly why it is such a damning admission.
I was interested in how [Alex] Hilton described how he came to hold the views he did, which is always interesting, in my view. His family background is working class - printing and coal mining, two industries that succumbed to the crackdown on subsidy and the trade union closed shop thanks to the Thatcher years (I strongly support both such changes, naturally). Hilton is a reminder, however, that a lot of people experienced the hard side of those changes, necessary though they were. I was a bit disappointed that Dale did not ask the question, “So Alex, are you in favour of massive coal subsidies and the old print union methods, then?”, which was a pity. But at one stage we got a really interesting admission. Hilton was talking about leftist economics bloggers, and said it was a pleasure to come across such folk, because on the whole, “economics is an emotional issue for socialists”, or some such. I certainly remember the use of the word “emotional”. Bang. For a socialist to actually admit that their views on economics are driven, not by logic, factual evidence, by reason, but by “emotion” is a big admission. It is an admission of intellectual defeat if you do not say that you have reason as your main motivator. It is to run up a big, white flag in the battle of ideas. When Marx was writing about class and the rise of the proletariat, he did not present his arguments as “emotional” - though of course they were in many respects. He used the language of science a lot. The left used to talk about ’scientific socialism’. Their posters had big pictures of factories, machines and aircraft on them, all waxing lyrical about technology and the power of reason. The left is now a very different, post-modernist beast. Reason is out. Emotion is in.
Filed under: Life
I’m pretty sure I was bemoaning that for socialists, economics is an emotional subject - explaining it rather than condoning it.
Of course the printing and mining industries needed to change - but only someone truly evil would destroy those industries without investing in alternatives in communities that were dependent on one industry.
Is it bad economics to promote a diversity of employment opportunities?
Of course the printing and mining industries needed to change - but only someone truly evil would destroy those industries without investing in alternatives in communities that were dependent on one industry.
Why on earth do you think that? From where I stand, only someone truly evil would steal from me in order to ‘invest’ in themselves. Your morals may - and obviously do - vary.
Is it bad economics to promote a diversity of employment opportunities?
It is bad economics and (again) immoral to take from others in order to do so. Isn’t that obvious?
Economics is about reality. “You cannot spend more than you earn.”
Socialism is about infantile fantasy. “But I waaaant it!”
“Bad” economics is either out of touch with reality, or it is only “bad” in the sense that it forces fantasy to confront reality.
To emote is the precise opposite of to reason. Which is one reason why socialism is so violent, inarticulate and ultimately lacking in creative power.
Especially good in this book is the testimony of Arthur Koestler about the self-delusion of the Leftist who blanks out (but is perfectly aware) of the slaughters commited in the name of “Humanity.”
Did you guys hear Margaret Thatcher died?
Alex, why don’t you come onto the Samizdata comment threads and defend your actions or explain your views? Seriously, if you think I misrepresented you or are being unfair, then come over.
To argue that “only someone truly evil” would have abolished coal subsidies and taken away the outrageous privileges of the Fleet St print unions without putting in place some alternatives is wrong. First off, note the emotional language again. Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, dispised the nationalised coal industry, the wrecking tactics of Arthur Scargill and his thugs, and feared the impact of the National Union of Mineworkers on the capacity of the British state to keep the lights on. So she acted, with her usual zeal, to obliterate the NUM and all its works. And I suspect that the more thoughtful members of the Labour Party were thoroughly glad to see the back of Scargill.
The end of the main coal mines was a harsh process for the people who lost their jobs, and perhaps more could and should have been done to ease the pain of transition. But to describe the woman who brought about the end of thuggish trade unionism “evil” is precisely the sort of emotion-over-reason argument that I criticised in my original article.
Interesting blog. I’ve always wondered about the miners strike and the governments policies throughout it coming from an area where coal mining has shaped the social and physical landscape irrivocably (sp?). Anyway - I’d love to hear if anyone knows the answers to these questions ;
1) Has the average cost of electricity and the average price (relative to income) of heating ones home increased or decreased since the early 80’s ?
2) The burden of taxation has not dropped, what did the government spend our taxes on when they no longer had to subsidise the national coal industry ?
Given that the free market may be all very well when other people practice it too, which they never do, comparing UK coal output to the rest of europes was pointless since the coal industries in Europe were even more hevaliy subsidised than ours were. Looking back on the whole thing now it seems like a needless situation brought about by people who were blinded by ideology on both sides. Anyway, I like your blog Jackie, it’s usually an interesting way to pass the time while quiet at work.