The difference is that the authoritarian BS is designed to benefit a tiny section of the population. That's why it's not only BS, it's inconsistent and the "rules" change on demand. If corporate welfare benefits banks, then banks get to pretend that corporate welfare is the most economically sound in the whole history of political economics.

If someone else benefits, then suddenly it's a travesty, an outrage, a disaster waiting to happen, a moral hazard (that last one is particularly entertaining) and so on.

The so-called "left" we've had for the last couple of decades, which is really the centre right, is willing to put aside its fervently held egalitarian principles and agree with the muggings, for purely pragmatic reasons.

A real left would support co-ops because co-ops happen to be a consistent and effective way to run an economy - they run stably, they're democratic, they don't explode, and they're good at supporting economic participation - also known as "jobs."

Unfortunately we haven't had anyone with these views in power since the 60s. And they weren't allowed to do a lot when they were in power.

Basically if a democratic left was ever allowed near national policy, it would make a point of kicking the bums out. And that has never been allowed to happen.

The whole point of UKUncut, spanishrevolution, the action in Greece and Africa - and doubtless more to come - is that people have seen through the shell game now, and they're no longer content to be bullied and lied to by people with the morals of a petty thief and the pompousness of a petty lord.