I agree with the first part but the second part I don't - the world has tried socialising the profit and it didn't work. Without the incentive of profit countries struggle to generate wealth. China has only seen an economic boom since it introduced a significant element of capitalism.

The banking crisis was unique - you had a group of people who could act with impunity - they knew whatever happened nobody was going to let them go bust. That is not the case for virtually every other business. In the socialist model if the industry generated deficits who picks up the bill?

Capitalism is not perfect but what is the alternative?

The three young children killed scavenging for coal to warm their parents freezing homes.

We still remember.

Did you vent your anger on Scargill?

Spare us the crocodile tears.

It is a fact that striking miners continued to receive their full allocation of free coal/anthracite beans throughout the strike. All of which was delivered in bulk through picket lines with the full co-operation of the area headquarters at Barnsley, before being delivered locally by the usual contracted coalmen!

And in my local pub, several times Union Reps came in and tried in vain to get striking miners to join in the picketing. Their lack of response was down to most of them signing up with agencies and taking whatever part/full time work there was going. In fact, more than a few never went back underground at all.

Solidarity my Comrade!

No.
Why should I do that when he was telling the truth?

Quote WIZEB="WIZEB"No. Why should I do that when he was telling the truth?'" ,Cos he called a strike without a ballot and caused the hardship endured by strikers families. Many were always going to lose their jobs so it would have been better for families to have had time to plan for a new future whilst working than to endure hardship. If you thought the NUM of Scargill amd Mad Mick was the way to go, under free movement you could go to France: www.cityam.com/article/138905909 ... g-tragedy# Au revoir.

Quote WIZEB="WIZEB"No. Why should I do that when he was telling the truth?'" ,Cos he called a strike without a ballot and caused the hardship endured by strikers families. Many were always going to lose their jobs so it would have been better for families to have had time to plan for a new future whilst working than to endure hardship. If you thought the NUM of Scargill amd Mad Mick was the way to go, under free movement you could go to France: www.cityam.com/article/138905909 ... g-tragedy# Au revoir.

Quote Dally="Dally",Cos he called a strike without a ballot and caused the hardship endured by strikers families. Many were always going to lose their jobs so it would have been better for families to have had time to plan for a new future whilst working than to endure hardship. If you thought the NUM of Scargill amd Mad Mick was the way to go, under free movement you could go to France: www.cityam.com/article/138905909 ... g-tragedy# Au revoir.'" Fook a ballot! He was the only figure from the left of British politics who had the balls to stand up and be counted whilst w@nkers like Kinnock stood back ineffectivrly tossing it off. For that, and being minorly involved in the process, I will always be eternally grateful. The victory is the struggle. =#FF0040Edited

Quote Dally="Dally",Cos he called a strike without a ballot and caused the hardship endured by strikers families. Many were always going to lose their jobs so it would have been better for families to have had time to plan for a new future whilst working than to endure hardship. If you thought the NUM of Scargill amd Mad Mick was the way to go, under free movement you could go to France: www.cityam.com/article/138905909 ... g-tragedy# Au revoir.'" Fook a ballot! He was the only figure from the left of British politics who had the balls to stand up and be counted whilst w@nkers like Kinnock stood back ineffectivrly tossing it off. For that, and being minorly involved in the process, I will always be eternally grateful. The victory is the struggle. =#FF0040Edited

Really? They may not shout it from the rooftops but they have their vested interests as much at their side as Scargill did.

In any case the point is whatever the unions did its how government reacted to it that determined their fate.



Many miners lost their jobs under Wilson. 43% of them in fact (of a much larger industry). That is writing your own pay check is it?

They key difference between the two eras is back in Wilson's time the miners accepted pits could close and that they could either move elsewhere in the industry or if not that the economy supported other suitable jobs for them to go to.

In Thatchers time neither of those points applied. Scargill believed Thatcher wanted to destroy the industry not just close 20 pits so there was no alternative employment going to exist within coal mining. And the economy was nothing like as strong as under Wilson and there just weren't the jobs outside the industry to go to.

For these reasons I don't blame Scargill for fighting tooth and nail against what he has been proven right was the plan all along. I thought at the time he was an idiot calling a strike when coal stocks were high and at the wrong time of year but his failings as a leader don't alter that now the truth is out he knew what was coming.

The alternative is responsible capitalism.

Where companies and individuals don't engage in shady deals, or move money glabally to avoid paying their share of tax. Especially when those same companies are benefitting from the products of other taxpayers' largesse. Look at the companies that make $bns from internet services (Google being just one example), how much did Google invest in starting up the world wide web?

The state (in a global rather than domestic sense) is usually the major investor in proposed new technologies. Pioneering medical treatments, communications, alternative fuel technologies, even now-mundane things like colour LCDs (Hull University) were generally pioneered and developed by the state, most of them via the military. The funding for that came from taxation and we are now in the situation where private and publicly quoted companies feel it is somehow right to avoid putting anything back into the system.

Have a look at some of the works of [url=http://www.marianamazzucato.com/Mariana Mazzucato[/url especially [url=http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdfThe Entrepreneurial State[/url

I accept that the so-called socialist states that we've seen so far have not been raging successes but unregulated capitalism can hardly be called anything like a success either. One thing is certain, rolling back the state will lead to a reduction in responsibility, we're already seeing that in the NHS, where the Secretary of State for Health (Hunt) is seeking to absolve himself of any responsibility for what happens in the NHS. That must not be allowed to continue.

Back on the original topic, it's also interesting to read about [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_CollieryTower Colliery[/url, a mine deemed uneconomic and earmarked for closure, yet the miners bought it and worked it for another 14 years.

:1h8wx5zw

This.

To add: why would anyone assume that the current model of capitalism that we're seeing is the only one?

We only need look at the UK to see that other models are more than possible: if you cannot have responsible capitalism, then businesses such as John Lewis or Richer Sounds should not be successful.

On the Mazzucato book, it's worth quoting the review from the [i:1h8wx5zwFT[/i:1h8wx5zw This book has a controversial thesis. But it is basically right. The failure to recognise the role of the government in driving innovation may well be the greatest threat to rising prosperity."

In 1974 when Wilson got to power - the miners agreed a 30% wage increase with the NCB - I would say that was writing your own pay check would you not agree?

The introduction of more modern machinery would see a decline in numbers - that is just process improvement nothing to do with Wilson - its just evolution.

I agree with your sentiment re Scargill - my point is how much of what he did was about self-interest i.e. war against the capitalist rulers and all the lefty codswallop. The question for me did he actually shorten the life of the mining industry and cause he members unnecessary hardship just for his own political ambitions. Another point is why did Thatcher pick specifically on the NUM for the fight?

In 1974 when Wilson got to power - the miners agreed a 30% wage increase with the NCB - I would say that was writing your own pay check would you not agree?

The introduction of more modern machinery would see a decline in numbers - that is just process improvement nothing to do with Wilson - its just evolution.

I agree with your sentiment re Scargill - my point is how much of what he did was about self-interest i.e. war against the capitalist rulers and all the lefty codswallop. The question for me did he actually shorten the life of the mining industry and cause he members unnecessary hardship just for his own political ambitions. Another point is why did Thatcher pick specifically on the NUM for the fight?