Scary stuff. So what happens to those who DO join the workforce, but in a completely different field? Surely that would be a 'waste of knowledge' too? Or, those who only use some of their knowledge for example, if I chose to work as a dietetic assistant rather than a dietitian when I qualify?

And how would this woman propose to 'punish' transgressors?

There are too many mad and scary people in the world for my liking.

> And how would this woman propose to 'punish' transgressors?

Judging by what she's said, looks like she wants to take back the cost of their education from them -- in other words, a massive tax on raising children, proposed by a "feminist". She's clearly under the popular misapprehension that the government have money of their own that they generously give to people.

Does pronunciation of her name suggest a motivation?

No, it doesn't.

That's quite a phenomenally stupid thing to say, if I may say so, quite apart from being pointlessly hateful. Humour's supposed to have a kernel of truth in it. Last I checked, gay and lesbian activists wanted the right to adopt, not to stop straight people from having kids.

Out of curiosity, I investigated Holland's birth rate, and discovered that it's apparently 182nd out of 223 countries.

True, plenty of other European countries are worse (Italy is 217th and Germany 220th), but given the ongoing Dutch controversy over immigration it might be wise for their politicians to actively encourage child-raising rather than seek to penalise it.

Her name is in any case pronounced "dayksma": the i-j combination in Dutch is normally pronounced as if it were a-y.

> This is what mainstream Socialism has come to.

I hardly think genuine Socialists would be that worried about "destruction of capital" (something you'd normally criticise them for), nor would they view education purely in terms of the money it costs. The Dutch Labour party is presumably about as "socialist" as the neoliberal British one.

Of course, you know this, but aren't going to let it stop you from your tiresome little attack on imaginary left-wingers on to whom you can affix all political ideas you find distasteful.

What's particularly hypocritical is that, while the article talks about "[a] highly-educated woman", you, as a hardline capitalist, don't believe for a second that the state should fund tertiary education.

You, as ever, are a stinking hypocrite.

So if you don't think the State should fund something, you are automatically opposed to that something? Not all of us look to the State to provide everything for us. That provision is in any event, simply an illusion fostered by the assumption that the money we are forced to give to the State is somehow created by or belongs to the State.

Isn't one of the more stupid elements of the lady's outburst (and it's a wide choice) the idea that highly educated people who choose to raise their children and not to work are wasting their education?

It's at least plausible that such people would use the fruits of their education in the child-raising process. Thus in fact generating capital, if one insists on reducing everything to that level.

Yes, quite. I have read that she rejects this notion that raising children is a valuable use of one's time. She probably thinks the state should do it.

> the lady's outburst

What's really worrying is that it appears not to have been a mere outburst. Her party are not just backing her up, but are repeating her claims as a statement of principle. This really could become policy.

> it's a wide choice

Certainly is. To my mind, the really thick bit is the bedrock assumption that the state have paid for your education. They have VAT in the Netherlands, so, even if you don't work your whole life, you still pay loads of tax. That's what pays for your education: you do. The state merely provides a book-keeping and profit-skimming service.

The really nasty bit is that I can't tell the difference between what this "Socialist" "feminist" has said and "What do you need to go to university for? You're just going to be spending your life pregnant in a kitchen anyway."

OK, the really stupid stuff first.

> Of course, you know this, but aren't going to let it stop you from your tiresome little attack on imaginary left-wingers ...

Sharon Dijksma is imaginary? Blimey.

>... on to whom you can affix all political ideas you find distasteful.

I haven't affixed any ideas on to her. They're her ideas.

> you, as a hardline capitalist ...

Am I? Gosh.

> ... don't believe for a second that the state should fund tertiary education.

Don't I? Gosh.

> I hardly think genuine Socialists would be that worried about "destruction of capital" (something you'd normally criticise them for)

Would I? Gosh. Again.

Look, I have to assume that your in-depth knowledge of my political opinions comes from reading this blog. There's a handy Google search-box in the sidebar. Do please go ahead and find an example of my saying the things you think I think. Bet you can't.


> I hardly think genuine Socialists ...
> The Dutch Labour party is presumably about as "socialist" as the neoliberal British one.

Ah, such a handy cop-out, that. Dijksma would tell you that she's a genuine Socialist. The leadership of the PvdA would tell you that they're genuine Socialists. I hardly think there's anything hypocritical or sneaky on my part in criticising them on the basis of their own claims.

If you mean to say that not all Socialists agree with Dijksma, well, then, yes, obviously, and I'd never be thick enough to claim otherwise. My point, though, was that, say, fifty years ago, you couldn't have found a Socialist on the planet to agree with Dijksma. Now you can find a whole party of them, and a major party at that. "The moral degradation of modern Socialism" seems like a good description of that to me. That you, a Socialist (presumably), disagree with them, makes no difference to that. In fact, it's on Socialist grounds that I disagree with them. On the subject of maternity rights, I agree with what used to be mainstream Socialism: raising children is an important task, for which women shouldn't be penalised. Giving women the right to work (which they certainly should have) has created a world in which most women have to work; in that environment, women should be able to take time off work to have children and have their job waiting for their return when they come back. Somehow, Dijksma's belief in Socialism and feminism has turned her against those ideals.

How does that make me a hypocrite, pray?

> So if you don't think the State should fund something, you are automatically opposed to that something?

Strawman. I didn't say that. I don't believe Squander Two supports state funding of higher education (unless he wants to correct me), so it seems hypocritical to stand up for Dutch people's rights to it.


FishBreeder - good point.


> Sharon Dijksma is imaginary? Blimey.

No, 'left-winger Sharon Dijksma" is imaginary.


> I haven't affixed any ideas on to her. They're her ideas.

I was speaking more generally. It seems to be a common trope among right-wingers to attach "socialist" or "left-wing" to ideas they don't like, regardless of whether they are socialist ideas or not.

Let's say, for argument's sake, you're a Squanderist, and there's 150 years worth of Squanderist literature and a global movement of Squanderists. There are differing types of Squanderist, but they all share certain basic principles. If I started a political party called the "Squanderist Party", but my manifesto contained policies diametrically opposed to the ideals of Squanderism, does that mean that *your* philosophy is morally degraded? No, it means I'm not practising the philosophy.


> Am I? Gosh.

Recent quotes like: "popular interpretations of the works of Karl Marx led to mass murder in Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, Germany, Italy, Palestine, Syria, Hungary, Mongolia, Peru...." and "Break the American teachers' unions.", combined with your criticism of leading left figures like George Galloway and Naomi Klein, and your approving comments about GW Bush and borderline racist warmonger blog Harry's Place give a fair outline of your views.


> Somehow, Dijksma's belief in Socialism and feminism has turned her against
> those ideals.

As you know fine well, her beliefs mean that she's no socialist. But rather than title your post something like "The abandonment of Socialism by formerly Socialist parties continues apace", you went with "The moral degradation of modern Socialism continues apace", suggesting that anti-feminist, neoconservative ideas were somehow an integral part of modern socialism. Which, of course, is complete bullshit. See my point above about imaginary left-wingers.

Oh Squander, you haven't been criticising that fine upstanding advocate of left principles, George Galloway, have you? Oh say it isn't so!

See, I know full well that there are bastards on the Right. My claim about, for instance, the Ku Klux Klan would be that they're racist murderers and utter shitheads and right-wingers. It's a very easy, convenient, and childish game just to claim that anyone with objectionable views can't possibly really be on "your" side. It's more honest and realistic to recognise that any political movement with such a broad label as "Right" or "Socialist" contains a huge range of often conflicting opinion.


> popular interpretations of the works of Karl Marx led to mass murder in Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, Germany, Italy, Palestine, Syria, Hungary, Mongolia, Peru....

How does observing an empirical fact make me a hard-line Capitalist? That statement is true independently of my own beliefs. It would continue to be true if I were to become a Marxist mass-murderer myself.


> Break the American teachers' unions.

Was the heading of a post about yet another idiotic case of zero tolerance in an American school — a boy expelled for writing his own initials in his own notebook. Anyone who follows this issue will tell you several things about zero tolerance policies: that they treat all children as criminals by default; that they take the concepts of discretion and initiative out of teachers' jobs; and that one of the reasons the policies are still in place despite being hated by everyone is that the teachers' unions operate a closed shop. If you actually look into the issue, you'll find a lot of opposition to the American teachers' unions from both Left and Right, mainly because of ZT. Did you know that these policies, so rigorously backed by the unions, disproportionately target black kids? No, of course you didn't. So what's worse in your version of Socialism: opposing unions or screwing up black childrens' education?

It's not entirely clear what you mean by "hard-line Capitalist", but I get the impression that you mean it in the sense of "someone who opposed Russia in the Cold War", which is hardly damning — though it is the diametric opposite to George Galloway. I'm certainly Capitalist in the sense of believing that people should be allowed to do what they like with their own property, but that's the default opinion of most of the human race — including hard-line Communists, when they get into power and it's their property in question.

Naomi Klein I've mentioned once, ever, because she believes that globalisation is bad because it harms local producers but that doesn't stop her writing for The Guardian, a paper published thousands of miles away from her home. Again, that would still be hypocrisy if I were left-wing.

For the record, I'm a free-marketeer. Capitalists (in Marx's sense) tend to pay lip-service to the free market while doing everything they can to restrict it. They don't restrict it as much as Communists and Socialists, so appear much further down my list of bastards, but they're still on it.


> Let's say, for argument's sake, you're a Squanderist, and there's 150 years worth of Squanderist literature and a global movement of Squanderists. ... If I started a political party called the "Squanderist Party", but my manifesto contained policies diametrically opposed to the ideals of Squanderism ...

I can think of a good example of exactly what you're talking about. Back when I was a Socialist, we backed Salman Rushdie's right to free speech against Islamist tyrrany. Today, much of the Left have come out in opposition to anyone who publishes cartoons of Mohammed. Not all the Left, but a hell of a lot more of them than would have done so twenty years ago. I barely recognise the movement I used to be a part of.


> suggesting that anti-feminist, neoconservative ideas were somehow an integral part of modern socialism.

Firstly, I think you're confusing "modern Socialism" with "every single Socialist in the world". Secondly, it has been a part of feminist thinking for decades that child-rearing is a racket cooked up by men to keep women dependent. (Please note the difference between "a part of feminist thinking" and "something that every feminist in the world believes".) Dijksma wants more women in the workplace more of the time, which is one of many feminist ideals. She's run into the problem that to continue to increase the number of women in work beyond a certain level, you need to stop them staying at home and looking after their kids, and she's had to choose which path to go down. Faced with two conflicting feminist ideals, she didn't choose the one you or I would have chosen. That doesn't mean that the one she chose wasn't really a feminist ideal. There have always been lunatics like her. They used to be denounced by their parties, not backed by them.

Thirdly, do you have any idea what "neoconservative" means? Go on: tell us how Dijksma's policy is neoconservative. I could do with a laugh.


> I don't believe Squander Two supports state funding of higher education (unless he wants to correct me)

I already did correct you. Or didn't you pick up on that?


> I was speaking more generally. It seems to be a common trope among right-wingers ...

Look, your comment's right up there where we can all still read it. No, you weren't talking generally about right-wingers; you were talking specifically to me, accusing me of affixing beliefs to Ms Dijksma. If you want to retract your ridiculous statement, do so, but don't try and tell us that you didn't really say it.

I don't go along with everything Mcthing says, but I do agree that your post-title about "the moral degradation of modern Socialism" doesn't sit easily with your noble sentiment that "It's more honest and realistic to recognise that any political movement with such a broad label as "Right" or "Socialist" contains a huge range of often conflicting opinion."

Indeed, so why not limit your (justifiable by the way) attack on Dijksma, to her and her cronies?

She and her cronies all claim to be Socialists.

I'm a bit of an existentialist when it comes to this sort of thing: by their deeds shall you know them. When tens of thousands of people, all claiming to be Socialists, get together and perform certain acts, all in the name of Socialism, then, as far as I'm concerned, what they're doing is an example of Socialism in action. (Could be a conspiracy to discredit Socialism, of course, but I reject any conspiracy theory that requires more than four people to be in on it.) The only way in which a political movement is relevant is in what it does. Theoretical arguments about what might be written in The Big Book Of Socialism are all very well and no doubt fascinating to the world's emeritus professors of Socialism, but are irrelevant to the real world. When the largest Socialist party in a country has a certain policy, what exactly is to be gained by saying that they shouldn't have it? They do.

It's like the way many Communists will tell you that Communism hasn't really been discredited because the world hasn't seen true Communism yet. When it comes to an academic discussion of what's in Das Kapital, they probably have a point. But in any discussion that isn't purely about books, they don't.

Meanwhile, all you're doing here is shooting the messenger. It wasn't I who claimed that Dijksma was a Socialist; it was her. And she should know. If you're concerned that she's bringing your beliefs into disrepute, contact her about it.

Oh, how timely: see Article 11.

> Go on: tell us how Dijksma's policy is neoconservative.

But, according to your logic, if her party changed its name to The Dutch Neoconservative party it *would* be a neoconservative idea. You fell right into that, didn't you?

On a similar note - China is the fastest growing economy in the world. China claims to be "Communist", and indeed has the largest Communist Party in the world. So, according to your bizarre logic, Communism is the most successful economic system in the world right now.

And presumably, as a free-marketeer, you wholeheartedly support the actions of the "free-marketeers" in Chile?

> according to your logic, if her party changed its name to The Dutch Neoconservative party it *would* be a neoconservative idea.

No, no, no. According to my reasoning, if a large number of people who called themselves "neoconservatives" because they genuinely believed in neoconservative ideals were to adopt Dijksma's policies without feeling that they had in any way abandoned those beliefs, then you'd be able to conclude that the policies were in some way representative of some facet of neoconservatism. Not too hot on the reading comprehension skills, are you?

So OK, let me rephrase ever so slightly for the hard of thinking:

When tens of thousands of people, all claiming to be Socialists and meaning it, get together and perform certain acts, all in the name of what they genuinely believe to be Socialism ....

I had thought that was kind of obviously implicit, especially with my comment about conspiracy theories, but apparently not.

Political movements are actually quite good at self-regulating when it comes to names. The Neoconservative movement, for instance, was founded by a bunch of Marxists, Communists, and Socialists. They chose not to call themselves "Marxists", "Communists", or "Socialists" because they recognised that their beliefs had changed so much from those that it would be misleading to do so. Other political movements have broken off from mainstream Communism over the years while choosing to keep the name "Communism", because they feel that their core beliefs are still basically Communist. As a rule, they're correct. That's why your hypothetical is ridiculous: there is no likelihood whatsoever of the Dutch Labour Party changing their name to "Neoconservative", because they don't believe that that's what they are.

Where an idea comes from is relevant, too. We know where Dijksma's idea come from, because she's helpfully told us: the ideal of getting more women into the workplace -- a Socialist ideal.

When it comes to China, well, firstly, you're conflating politics with economics. Nobody, the Chinese Government included, claims that China has a Communist economy. Secondly, you seem to be implying that I give a shit how powerful an economic system is, whereas the problem with Communism is that it imprisons people in an authoritarian hell, which is wrong regardless of the economic results. Thirdly, yes, of course modern Chinese Communism is an important part of the whole history of Communism and its effects, but you have to consider where ideas come from. When it comes to how to rule politically, modern Chinese Communism gets its ideas from traditional Communism. When it comes to how to generate wealth, modern Chinese Communism gets its ideas from Hong Kong. I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone in the Chinese Government who claims that they're running their economy on Marxist, Soviet, or Maoist principles.

So, anyway, tell us all in what way Dijksma's policy is neoconservative.

Oh, and I don't claim to know anything about Chilean politics, but it's usually a good bet that I don't wholeheartedly support the actions of any political group, anywhere, ever.

> When tens of thousands of people, all claiming to be Socialists and meaning it, get together and perform certain acts, all in the name of what they genuinely believe to be Socialism ....

Yes, but that's not happening in your Dutch example. One politician from a "Socialist" party suggests this policy - a policy that I'm positive won't be endorsed even by a majority of that party's members, never mind the hundreds of Scoialist parties and hundreds of thousands of Socialists around the world.
You've merely used this to facilitate your ugly little dig at Socialists. Even one of your acolytes agrees above. It's the kind of thing self-confessed ex-lefties do with monotonous regularity.


> Political movements are actually quite good at self-regulating when it comes to names.

Next you'll be telling me that Hitler was a Socialist.


> the ideal of getting more women into the workplace -- a Socialist ideal.

It's never been a Socialist ideal to force women into the workplace by penalising them financially for having children. Indeed, penalising women financially for having children is a Capitalist idea. Also, the policy is gender-discriminatory, making it opposed to another Socialist ideal. So that's another one of your non-arguments blown out of the water.


> you're conflating politics with economics.

To believe that politics and economics are separate is a classic "Capitalist Realist" error. But then, you're a self-confessed free marketeer, so trying to convince you that economics are ideological is like trying to explain evolution to a creationist.


> Nobody, the Chinese Government included, claims that China has a Communist economy.

The Chinese economy is run by the the Chinese Communist Party, the world's largest Communist party, who claim that all of their policies are Communist. If, as you claim, Dijksma's policy is "Socialist", then your own logic tells us that China's miraculous growth is the result of "Communism".


> it imprisons people in an authoritarian hell, which is wrong regardless of the economic results.

Your free market system does this as well, of course, it's just that it rarely achieves economic results as impressive.


> So, anyway, tell us all in what way Dijksma's policy is neoconservative.
Firstly, it treats education, something most socialists would see as a human right, as a luxury good to be considered in terms of how much it cost.

Secondly, it is anti-feminist, in that it essentially gives women the choice of having (a) a family, or (b) a decent job. It's designed specifically to maximise the amount of capital that women generate. Neocons realise that educating women who aren't going to serve capital or are going to want maternity leave/career breaks are monetarily "inefficient". Better to offer woman two choices - be a man and keep your mouth and legs shut, or be breeding stock, producing the next generation of worker-consumers (for which they don't need an expensive education - paid for from profit-eating taxes).

It's classic Neoconservatism, pretending to be progressive and pro-equality, nodding to "Capitalist Realism", but actually seeking to enforce gender and wealth divisions/hierarchies.


> Oh, and I don't claim to know anything about Chilean politics, but it's usually a good bet that I don't wholeheartedly support the actions of any political group, anywhere, ever.

How fortunate. The guy who apparently knows shitloads about Socialism and Chinese Communism has a blind spot about the only time in modern history Friedmanite free marketeers got involved in the running of a country.

Please don't reply to the rhetorial question about Hitler.

She and her cronies all claim to be Socialists.

But you didn't just call her a "Socialist", you said: "This is what *mainstream Socialism* has come to" [my emphasis]. Which is (a) ever so slightly stronger than "...in some way representative of some facet of neoconservatism...", (b) not covered by your "existentialist" wriggling, (c) not true, and (d) an obvious attempt to smear a far larger group of people than the ones committing the offence to which you're (reasonably) objecting.

I was right: that did give me a laugh.

And I have acolytes? Cool.


Larry,

The PvdA are a mainstream Socialist party. I didn't say "all mainstream Socialism" because that's not what I meant. Again, I thought it sufficiently obvious that any political movement contains a wide range of opinion that I didn't need to bother spelling that out. On that score, I certainly was wrong.

Did you know that you're one of my acolytes, by the way? You should have said. I'd've given you a fish sandwich or something.

On that score, I certainly was wrong.

Yes I'd agree with that.

Do I have to remind you of my acolyteness every time then?

And I don't eat fish, but thanks for the thought...

> it imprisons people in an authoritarian hell, which is wrong regardless of the economic results.

Your free market system does this as well, of course, it's just that it rarely achieves economic results as impressive.


Ha ha! One just has to laugh at the level of self-delusion in this. One has only to imagine the opposite situation to this idiot making comments like this, in a free society, using the fruits of the free market, to see the absurdity. In fact, one doesn't need to imagine it. People living in China cannot even mention the free market when posting or commenting on blogs, and cannot even access this blog.

Oh, and if communism is so good at creating wealth, I wonder why the Soviet Union collapsed under its own internal contradictions. Wait, don't tell me- it was a neocon plot! Or maybe it's the fault of the Jews...

If I remember correctly, the USSR's economy would have flourished if the Americans hadn't unfairly engaged them in an arms race. Oh, except that the USA didn't really win said arms race because the USSR's economy was about to collapse anyway. Or something.