AHC: Left-wing Thatcherism

The idea is partly based on these postings by AH users ShortsBelfast and Cevolian, and especially by two pieces. One was an article I've read some years ago by German conservative/libertarian-leaning journalist Ulf Poschardt, who suggested that both punk rock and Margaret Thatcher led to a radical change in British culture and therefore sowed the seeds of 'Cool Britannia'. The other was this interview with Melanie Philips (who's also become quite conservative in recent years, but more traditionalist than Poschardt), where she mentions that Britain in the 1980s was challenged by a double assault of both Thatcherist individualism in the economy and cultural individualism in society (in her words, a "privatisation of morality"), thereby effectively destroying what Philips calls "the bonds of trust" and "common culture".

Due to Clause 28 or the clamp down of rave culture, we associate Thatcherism with cultural conservatism . But wasn't there a convergence between the self-help, autonomous DIY ethos of the radical fringe end of punk with bands like Crass, and Thatcher's notion that "there is no such thing as society" or "Save yourself, others you cannot save"? So the challenge idea is to create not just a post-script analysis of what Poschardt and Philips were talking about, but a proper political movement within a party that openly proposes radical social change (freedom for the individual, and freedom for the economy, but also combining this with the emancipation of women and minority groups) and then sets out to make it reality. I'm not talking about an early version of New Labour, but a 'bottom up' movement that would be railing against the traditional right-wing, but also against the traditional left-wing as examplified by the trade unions and the Labour Party.
 
A form of left-libertarianism, arising as a reaction to statism, social conservatism and the post-war consensus, would be an interesting deviation from OTL.

I think you could achieve this (and have the movement be semi-successful) with a POD in the 1960s. You'd need to discredit the modernising wing of the Conservative Party, thus keeping the "old boys' club" in charge into the 1970s, and sideline the socially liberal factions of the Labour Party in order to stifle any chance of meaningful social reform arising through legislation in that time period.
 
Interesting. Would this movement really qualify as "left-wing", though? Sounds like they are to keep deregulation, every-man-for-himself attitude and all or most right-wing economic ideas. Libertarianism is libertarianism, even if given a punk makeover.
 
This is more-or-less classical liberalism, isn't it?

I think you could achieve this (and have the movement be semi-successful) with a POD in the 1960s. You'd need to discredit the modernising wing of the Conservative Party, thus keeping the "old boys' club" in charge into the 1970s, and sideline the socially liberal factions of the Labour Party in order to stifle any chance of meaningful social reform arising through legislation in that time period.

This is probably the best way of doing that. You'd need someone from the Monday Club to probably take over in '65 as opposed to Heath along with someone from the trade union right-wing of Labour (Brown is usually the favourite for that or perhaps Callaghan?) to serve as the Opposition counterpart. With enough social pressure though, you'd probably see some leeway given unless either party is particularly obstinate in their adherence to their own ideologies under Monday Clubber/Trade Unionist. The Liberals, led by a classical liberal, would be the main beneficiaries of such a movement, of course.
 
Interesting. Would this movement really qualify as "left-wing", though? Sounds like they are to keep deregulation, every-man-for-himself attitude and all or most right-wing economic ideas. Libertarianism is libertarianism, even if given a punk makeover.

That's the tricky bit. Maybe it could work with a program that relies on a (sort of) street attitude: if there's any problem and you need some help, never call the police and never ask for state money, but instead ask your neighbours/friends/commune flatmates to sort it out. In a similar fashion as present-day small growth/de-growth types are getting their food from local farmers, the first contact persons in times of economic misery would be the people in your 'hood. So the ideal citizen here would be a more multifaceted type of the small businessman/woman: not just the traditional shopkeeper, but, for instance, also the jewellery maker, the voluntary fire brigade, the club owner, the dope dealer or the green farmer.

This is more-or-less classical liberalism, isn't it?

In a theoretical sense, yes, but classical liberalism always had an elitist streak, and it's no wonder that it basically declined with every major electoral reform. Also, contemporary libertarianism (as the successor of classical liberalism) always has a feeling of being a movement of mostly white men terrified that suddenly women and minority groups are also becoming part of their game. I'm looking for something more populist and diverse, maybe with influences from the New Left of the 1960s.
 
Interesting. Would this movement really qualify as "left-wing", though? Sounds like they are to keep deregulation, every-man-for-himself attitude and all or most right-wing economic ideas. Libertarianism is libertarianism, even if given a punk makeover.

The "left wing" and "right wing" to some extent define themselves by their opposition to one another. If the "left" are in favour of syndicalism then Atlee style nationalisation is "right wing authoritarianism". If the "right" are crony capitalists then free market liberalism is "left wing" (as Joseph Hume was regarded by Tory aristocrats in his day).
In 1930s Britain having a professionalised volunteer armed services (if you had to have such nasty things at all!) rather than large scale conscription to massive forces was a "left wing" concept. In France, having a professionalised volunteer armed services rather than large scale conscription (aka a citizen army) was a "right wing" concept to the extent of being fascist/putchist. All about perceptions really.

Quite a lot of modern "left wingers" are pro Islamist for instance and quite happy to ignore their antifeminism, homophobia and fairly fascist ideology because the "right wing establishment" opposes them. And the "left wing" and the "right wing" have both made a 180 degree turn on the right of the state of Israel to exist - contrast Thatcher and Baldwin or Silverman, Shinwell and Crossman with Corbyn and McDonnell.
Stalin was traditionally left wing in his economics but very socially conservative re things like education (closed down the early Bolshevik educational experiments, introduced rigorous selection and reinstated the teaching of traditional subjects like classical Greek and Latin) and literally of the view that homosexuals needed to be put up against a wall and shot.

So you can argue that the Monday Club were fairly "left wing" on social issues and education if you work from the premise that Generalissimo Stalin was "left wing" - and Roy Jenkins fairly far to the "right" by extension.

You can likewise argue that Harold Wilson or Neil Kinnock had "Fascist" or "Hitlerite" tendencies in that they believed in a mixed economy, state intervention to create employment, enhanced social welfare, creation of social housing and promotion on merit to government posts. If you work on the premise that Mussolini or Hitler were "right wing" that is!
 
Also, contemporary libertarianism (as the successor of classical liberalism) always has a feeling of being a movement of mostly white men terrified that suddenly women and minority groups are also becoming part of their game.

In her autobiography(co-written with John O'Sullivan of National Review), Thatcher mentions that while she supported the legalization of homosexuality in the 1960s, based on personally knowing gay men who had been arrested, she opposed later sex-education programs aimed at creating a more tolerant social(as opposed to legal) attitude toward gays and lesbians. Something about how they "exploit the sexual confusion often experienced by adolescents". Uncharitably, we could read that as her saying that the programs were aimed at "recruiting" people to homosexuality(as the social-conservatives always claim). Though it is within the realm of respectable libertarian orthodoxy to argue that while the state has no business punishing volutnary behaviour, it also has no business in trying to change attitudes toward it.
 
Top