« Age, wealth and income
A new session of Parliament with a new Queen's speech »
What is Marxism?
By johnredwood | Published: August 28, 2019
Some people bandy around the label Marxism too easily, without recognising what Marxism is. It might help the debate to remind people what Marx himself recommended by way of public policy in his much circulated Communist Party Manifesto. It contained ten wide ranging policy proposals, to recast the citizen's relation with the state and to give the state a much mightier role in the economy and society.
Just one of the ten proposals has gained widespread support today and been adopted throughout the advanced world. That was the last proposal, that the state should offer free education to all children, and child's labour in factories should be made illegal. This is now common ground for all UK political parties.
Three proposals related mainly to property. One demanded the confiscation of all property of emigrants and rebels. One required the abolition of all rights of inheritance. A third was the most wide ranging, seeking the abolition of all rights to property in land, with the state owning all land and charging rents. It was this system which helped lead to famines and agricultural disasters in communist countries trying something like it. In the USSR output of food was much stronger from the limited number of independent farm owners that survived, only to led to brutal attacks upon them for being successful.
Three policies proposed a massive extension of nationalised ownership. All banks would be converted into a single state monopoly bank. Communications and transport would be nationalised. There would also be substantial state take overs of industry and factories. This system led the USSR to fall behind the west technically and in terms of productivity. The Soviet economy was heavily skewed towards weapons production and heavy industry at the expense of consumer goods, owing to the low levels of per capita national income achieved.
There would be a heavy and progressive income tax. This was a good way to drive out talent and create a closed impoverished economy by advanced world standards.
There would be a requirement on everyone to work, with "industrial and agricultural armies" established to enforce the employment duty.
The state would combine agriculture with industry, "gradually abolishing the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace around the country."
I spent my early years in politics exposing why nine of these ten proposals caused misery, low incomes and a lack of freedom. I recommended the alternative, the Popular capitalist manifesto, based around the promotion of ownership for all and greater personal freedoms. How much of a threat are Marxist ideas again today? What can we learn from Venezuela? Why do advocates of Marxism as a political programme always claim states that followed their ideas were not true Marxist states, because they usually create poverty and tyranny combined.
Posted August 28, 2019 at 5:23 am | Permalink
Even the last proposal is a huge mistake. Schools should be independent and free of the state, with education vouchers given to people so they can spend (and top up) as needed. Parents etc. hoosing their own schools or education establishments as best meets their children's needs.
Otherwise schools become a state monopoly and indoctrination organisation rather like the dire BBC (though that as least has a bit more competition even if it is totally unfairly funded competition. Rather like the dire NHS you get what you are given or not given. Take it or leave it.
The other nine have even more appalling and totally deadly consequences.
So it seem from the Telegraph today that Boris & Downing Street are planning to cave in:-
Asked whether the Prime Minister would accept the Withdrawal Agreement if the backstop was removed, a Downing Street spokesman said:- "We have been clear that the changes we are seeking relate to the backstop."
This is not remotely sufficient. Without Farage on side the Conservative will not win any election. Farage is quite right to hold his feet to the fire.
How come that the French lycée system – grammar schools for all – leaves the UK standing?
Grammar schools are an excellent idea. I went to one. They turn out generally pro-European Union people too, and they should be available to all.
They are in principle nowadays, and they are called Comprehensives.
The fact that the Tories ran them down is a disgrace.
However, bringing back secondary-not-moderns for nine-out-of-ten of our young would be a far greater one.
Posted August 28, 2019 at 10:45 am | Permalink
what nonsense you post. the abolition of grammar schools was a Labour policy. whenever Conservatives have advocated bringing them back there have been howls of outrage from the left and the 'centre'.
what is clearly working on the other hand are Michael Gove's school reforms, raising standards in state schools. and in particular the free schools programme such as the wonderful Michaela school in NW London. the reform programme slowed to a virtual halt once Gove had left the dept, no doubt due to opposition from the Blob. Lets hope Boris gives Williamson the impetus to get it moving again.
You have clearly misread my post. Labour's policy was always grammar-school standard education for ALL, not just for the five percent.
I welcome any material improvement to existing schools, whatever shade of government might be in office.
Jagman84
Posted August 28, 2019 at 5:07 pm | Permalink
Labour's policy is an LCD education system. Everyone gets the same poor standard and are turned into good little socialists. It's the only way of achieving equality of outcome, so loved by our leftist elites. Their own offspring appear to be exempt, however. See 'Andy' for details….
No it wasnt Martin.
Labour are implacably opposed to Grammar Schools and any form of selective education.
Do you vote Labour and not read any of their manifesto promises first?
Grammar schools were introduced to the State sector by the Attlee Labour government after WWII, Edwards. The Comprehensive system was intended to raise all schools to that standard.
Do you not read any post properly?
Labour have been anti Grammar schools for decades.
Get reading those manifestos.
You have no idea what the main policies of the party you support actually are.
WHY THE HELL DONT YOU RESEARCH BEFORE POSTING?
Grammar schools have been in existence since the middle ages
In 1840 the Grammar Schools Act expanded the state Grammar School curriculum from classical studies to include science and literature.
"Clement Attlee as Prime Minister. With his huge Commons majority and the support of the party, his government could have created a comprehensive system. There were several reasons why it did not do so.
First, the notion that there were three types of child who required three different types of school – which had grown out of the deeply-ingrained English class system – was still widely accepted, not least among some members of the government.
Second, planning for the tripartite system had been going on for more than a year and to have started again from scratch would have been inconvenient and time consuming.
Third, the tripartite system was cheap: the grammar schools already existed; the technical schools could be based on the various trade schools; and many of the secondary modern schools were simply the larger elementary schools with a new name."
THE GRAMMAR SCHOOLS ALREADY EXISTED
You owe Edward 2 an apology, as once again the FACTS prove you wrong
"Grammar schools were introduced to the State sector by the Attlee Labour government"
I went to a grammar school that was founded in the 16th century. Other grammar schools in the same city were founded at the same time and later centuries well before the Labour Party was founded.
Leaver
With a heavy heart, I'm afraid I cannot support the suspension of parliament. I want Brexit, but not like this. Indeed, I may be forced to march on the subject. For one reason, and one reason alone.
What about when Comrade Corbyn claims the will of the people supports his Marxist agenda and does the same thing?
Rees-Mogg says that this is an "entirely normal procedure".
Well, Jacob, it's entirely normal to go down to the pub with your pals for a few pints.
However, not when your expectant wife has suddenly gone into labour with a breech presentation.
For what, exactly, does he take us?
It seems to be the only way that Brussels will take Boris seriously.
For me it's a good negotiating tactic…just 3 years too late.
There is very good article by Iain Dale on his blog site which puts today's decision by the PM into context.
Well worth a read.
I don't think there's anything undemocratic about it. Parliament has had more than enough time to debate Brexit. This move dramatically reduces the amount of futile debate that would otherwise ensue. What it doesn't do is diminish Remainers chances of bringing down the government and forming their own alternative government. It simply forces them to focus their minds and minimise the political posturing. Of course, if the political posturing of Remainers results in a no deal Brexit, then the next GE really might be a heck of a ride…
This is a standard procedure that has been used before and back in march Bercow called for this to support his own agenda. Delaying commons business for 4 days is a coup apparently , while a new Queens Speech is delivered
If Corbyn could produce the referendum result showing that indeed the people voted for it, then thats fine
Remainers are frankly dim
Parliament voted for 2016 referendum
Parliament voted for EU Notification Act
Parliament voted for EU Withdrawal Act
Parliament then rejected Deal – 3 times
Leaving without a deal is what follows when parliament rejects everything else
By the way did you demonstrate in the streets when the Belgian parliament was suspended in order to ram through the Maastricht Treaty against the will of the people ?
I can't believe you're all defending Corbyn. Really?
You would be okay for him to suspend parliament because it's a legal manoeuvre?
This is one precedent I do not want to set. And yes, I am grown-up, because I don't make childish insults.
A new Queen's Speech is overdue – the last was in June 2017.
Martin in Cardiff: "it's entirely normal to go down to the pub with your pals for a few pints. However, not when your expectant wife has suddenly gone into labour with a breech presentation. "
In the course of human civilization the modern fad for the husband to be present at the birth would be considered extraordinary and highly unusual.
I was in the pub during the birth of our first born, my wife was more that adequately attended by the doctors, nurses and midwife on the maternity ward.
1) Corbyn isn't PM
2) Everyone who does become PM suspends parliament its a normal part of the procedure
3) Ive no idea what you think will happen because Boris suspended parliament for 4 days
Maybe if you gave us some facts, evidence or a reason that its a problem rather than just crying its not fair,, corbyn we wouldn't be rude to you
I think Mrs Thatcher was the education secretary who closed the most of the. I went to Grammar school and even as a teenager too you to vote in 75 I was already against joining the Common Market. M Foot, Enoch Powell, T Benn, P Shore, B Castle etc. all rather more rational on this issue than the pro people. Powell especially saw the disaster and trap it was.
too young to vote I meant.
Sea Warrior
They clearly failed in their pro-EU indoctrination of Leaver-me. Must have been concentrating on my Latin.,
Both mine went to grammar. One did IB the other A levels. The workload for IB was FAR higher than A level and prepared my lad better than A levels for university.
This is where the UK education system has gone wrong. The inflation of A level grades and the spoon fed nature of the course work.
On lad is pro EU and the other anti.
Its like taking sweets from a baby
We STILL have grammar schools where I live. The local Labour Party staged an organised campaign to have then closed down
Oh and we voted overwhelmingly right across the county to leave the EU
The free schools and academies have been a great success ( I bet Labour controlled Lambeth feel right mugs now )
Now let me explain the French school system to you
collèges cater for the first four years of secondary education from the ages of 11 to 15.
The lycée ( which is NOT a grammar school ) is the second, and last, stage of secondary education in the French educational system. The City of Paris refers to a lycée in English as a "sixth form college"
Apart from that another great Martin post…
So a fifty-two to forty-eight result – not finished business by any means said Farage – is "overwhelming" is it?
Glad to see that your nit-picking has taught you something at least though.
Notice how Martin now moves onto a totally different argument when beaten.
Glad you accept that your post was totally and gloriously wrong
Moving on to your second moving the goalposts argument
1) I know Farage well, I'm not a fan and he doesn't speak for me
2) In a referendum or election unless a limit is set ( it wasn't) a majority of ONE is a majority , if a party won a GE by one seat they would take office
3) I know you cant read but I said in MY COUNTY it was overwhelming 59% to 41% leave thereby destroying your made up point that grammar school fans are remainers
My nit picking as you call it involves dissecting your rants and educating you with actual facts.
Martin….your point is so true – – Grammar schools are an excellent idea. However in mine (late 50s,early 60s ours and friends experience they did not deliver. The teachers were too often 'if you can't do, teach'. The subjects included no shorthand, no typing, no practical maths, no basic economics, no accounting priciples, no commercial law, no career information – -just a relentless Classics is all. If you or parents dared to question you became persona non grata. So many of us wanted, and did quit for work, or further study of relevance in the world about us. Those that stayed encouraged to aim for teaching, even to return to this poor alma mater! A great idea that often didn't deliver!
"They turn out generally pro-European Union people too"
Well they can't be that good then. Subversive in fact.
A lycée in France is not a grammar school. It is the final stage of secondary education, for the equivalent of our years 11-13, after the collèges which take years 7 to 10. State schools in France are not selective, and the lycées teach both academic and vocational courses for the baccalauréat. Although there are some aspects of French schools which are not as good as ours, one of the things which they do better than us is that they teach philosophy, which means that most French people can have a reasoned, thoughtful discussion about things.
The idea that you need to be taught philosophy at school to be able to have a reasoned and thoughtful discussion is totally wrong. Maths, Engineering, Logic and Physics help though. Some people with zero schooling can do so very well yet many with firsts in say Oxford PPE cannot. Prof A C Grayling certainly struggles with any rational Brexit discussion for example to him it's pure religion.
LL,
It's clear, the Boris version of the May Treaty is coming our way, UNLESS he can be forced to 'try harder'. We rely on our host and ERG, and the fear of the Brexit Party to get BJ to do what's needed. Perhaps our host will, once again, remind his colleagues of the deficiencies of the May treaty, ex backstop.
Indeed let us hope Boris realises that any deal that is not supported by Farage and the Brexit party will be a disaster for the party, the Boris leadership and the country.
Boris on the way to Balmoral it seems to ask the Queen to suspend Parliament TODAY'.
Well done Boris!
Wonderful to hear the outrage to this move by the many traitors who are trying to defeat Brexit (mainly while pretending not to be doing do)!
Again, I support Brexit, but not this.
So don't call me a traitor please. I just happen to believe this is a step too far, and I've already spoken to five others who all voted leave and all share my opinion.
This is not the will of the people. This is win at all costs and trample democracy in the process. No thanks.
What part of Brexit do you support?
A WTO Brexit or a new deal Brexit
Parliament already voted down the WA Brexit
Please explain how suspending parliament for 4 sitting days prevents any of these solutions
Update, if today's news is correct, perhaps BJ has a plan after all.
Will our host kindly explain how the reported plan gets us out on 31st free and clear?
There is no other planet to which the UK may be transported on October 31st, which is what would be needed to sever all ties with the European Union, as the fanatics and lunatics apparently believe to be possible.
Who wants to sever all ties with the EU?
Fanatics, lunatics…come on Martin keep calm.
Whatever Boris' plan is, judging by the entirety of what he's said, it's unlikely to be a good plan from a true Brexiters point of view. And even if the plan was a no deal Brexit, it almost certainly wouldn't work, because Parliament almost certainly wouldn't allow it.
Will Sir John confirm that he will not vote for the WA under any circumstances? And perhaps more importantly, will you confirm that, should the Commons pass a WA, that you would work to bring down the government?
Peter & LL, I hope you are wrong… 🙂
Boris has to guide the BREXIT camel "through the eye of a needle", can he do this? no ones knows. And is not being helped by those in Parliament who don't want a "no deal" BREXIT, they want us to STAY in the EU full stop, of course except the leader of the Opposition who is really a Eurosceptic and just wants power.
And lets be clear about this, the Draft Withdraw Agreement is NOT a deal. Even the Political Declaration is NOT a deal.
Certainly he [Boris] appears to have got further with the EU than our previous Prime Minister.
Boris will keep his cards close to his chest as would any sensible negotiator, it's certainly a "fingers crossed" moment.
cornishstu
Yes it is very disappointing that Boris's team have not dispelled the deal no deal myth to the public, it was understandable with May's government as she had no intention of leaving on WTO terms else we would have left in March.
What people often fail to realise is just how far down the Marxist road this country went following the '45 Labour Government and just how the curse of that government needs to be lifted. A couple of days ago in 'another place' I asked why does the State need to own and run (very badly) every school and hospital in the land ? We need radical reform and I agree that education vouchers would transform education radically and quickly. Health is also badly in need of radical reform, but no politician will touch this silly sacred cow that is the NHS.
Alan Joyce
Yes it doesn't look very good does it? I think Mr. Johnson gave the game away a little while back when he said 'that a healthy dose of optimism and a dash of "constructive ambiguity" can get Britain out of the European Union with a better deal by the October 31 deadline.'
Constructive ambiguity is, of course, a very fancy name for fudging.
Mr. Johnson may be successful in removing or amending the backstop and the EU would be delighted to see the UK remain largely subject to their rules and regulations.
What is difficult to reconcile is No.10's statement that the changes they are seeking relate to the backstop only (and so any attempt to bring a backstop-less WA back to the Commons will split the Conservative Party) with the obvious point that the Brexit Party will severely impact the Conservative's electoral fortunes if the WA is passed.
It would be nice to have some clarity on what the PM's plans for leaving the EU really are but I suspect even most Conservative MP's have little idea.
Helpful thing is constructive ambiguity.
Interesting how so many people have forgotten this:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/794750/Council_Decision.pdf
"(12) This extension excludes any re-opening of the Withdrawal Agreement. Any unilateral commitment, statement or other act by the United Kingdom should be compatible with the letter and the spirit of the Withdrawal Agreement, and must not hamper its implementation. Such an extension cannot be used to start negotiations on the future relationship."
It's almost as if EU law is only applied when it suits the EU …
Not almost,but precisely how they apply their rules.
Indeed. The Tory's cannot be trusted. Time for a new election, a new party and a new electoral system fit for the 21st Century.
Marxism, communism, socialism and variants sound like a nice idea, particularly to the young. The problem is that they don't work, have never worked, will never work.
@James1; The same can be said about Capitalism too! Any dogmatic, unbending, system will fail. The word "socialism" might be unwelcome to the political right in the USA but even their politicos have supported small S socialism, what do you think Medicare is, AMTRAK, welfare stamps, what is more their capitalist economy is all the better for it.
China is, currently, making quite a success out of a mix of Marxism and capitalism, either that or the West has made a pigs ear out of capitalism…
China is much more Leninist than orthodox Marxist.
"capitalism" isn't a system or a philosophy , its a term invented by Marx. The alternative to man made isms is just trade, one person selling goods, services or labour to another . This happens whether the system of government is communist, socialist, military dictatorship or religious theocracy . The freer the market the better the results however it works no matter what constraints are placed against it . It not unbending otherwise there wouldn't be social democracies, or communism with capitalist enclaves . See Kulaks in Soviet Union . Free markets are totally flexible
@Walter; "Capitalism" existed during the Roman Empire, as it did during the Greek Empire, stop getting so hung up on labels!
No Jerry , free trade and markets existed . There is no and never has been a "system" or a "philosophy" of capitalism. For someone who is usually such a pedant thats quite funny
@LL; We had this same debate the other week, you others still have not told us how such proposals would maintain compulsory education between age 5 – 18 without costing the tax payer even more, unless of course your idea is to make education voluntary, thus the State would not have to provide the same sizes of schools as they do now in case there is no takers for your private schools…
PS, congratulations to our host on his BBC News interview outside Parliament today, refusing to be interrupted, having been asked a question, he staunchly carried on with a full answer despite all attempt to cut him short! I bet that's the last time he will get an invite for a while…
Meanwhile Bercow, the Marxists and the various traitors to democracy in Labour, Libdims, Greens, SNP, Plaid and the appalling fake Conservative Gaukeward squad with the dire D Grieve continue their collaborations against the people and the UK. Totally undermining any UK negotiation position.
Even the dimmest are getting bored with your hollow "will of the people" mantra, so give it a rest, do.
It seems that the Italians are anyway. Five Star are ready to form a coalition with the centre-left and to ditch Salvini, it appears.
He's now bleating and whimpering about "betrayal" too.
Martin in Cardiff is bored of will of the people, he is right the dimmest are getting bored of it. …. Oh
L/L Yes, it makes me feel sick to the pit of my stomach that we have such rabble seeking to undermine democracy in this country. I never thought I would see the day when such treacherous behaviour was there for the whole world to see. They are a disgrace to this nation.
I agree fully.
My support for the people's Blue Boris is now unstinting following today's announcements and I am ready to man the barricades if needed.
You may well have too, because I'm pretty sure the will of the people is not to suspend parliament.
LL – – brings a whole new meaning to the 'throw the toys out of the pram'.
It interesting isn't it that despite its self evident failure Marxism in its various forms still retains a grip on some imaginations. The hunger of man to find some meaning beyond the chaos of his daily life , and a part in some higher nobler symphony , is insatiable.
Mussolini emerged the intellectual world of Marxist derived thought and by redefining the collective "we" along ethnic National lines invented Fascism.
In this mutated form the sickness in Western thought is far from defeated and this why we remainers shudder at the supposed " will of the people" that is used to trample on Parliament the individual business , freedom and the modest good sense of compromise and cooperation with our neighbours
You are without question an offence to dignified debate
He isn't capable of debate. He is a lonely bigoted noise in the dark.
Like most remainers posting on here and elsewhere he is anti democratic and should move to the third world where I'm sure he would be feted.
he is anti democratic ……
When 5 people vote to take my I-phone , you call it democracy I call it mugging (or shall we say extreme majoritarianism )
"When 5 people vote to take my I-phone…"
You – as a fully grown adult – took part in a vote in which (by your marking an 'X') agreed to abide by the result.
You did not campaign against the referendum before it took place. The referendum was set by a Parliamentary majority vote.
Now you have lost the legitimate vote you call the people who voted differently criminals and you come here several times a week and abuse them.
I think Dominic's comment about you is absolutely correct.
What an incredibly silly reply, Newmania
Hold on a minute…. You had an iPhone? How the hell did you get that? Its not made in an EU country or shipped there as part of a single market. Did you smuggle it in?
By the way if majority voting doesn't count how do you propose to organise voting in parliament ?
This must be a huge worry for Martin.
Will he be able to get another iPhone in the UK after October 31st?
We dont have a trade deal with America so perhaps Apple will refuse to sell him one.
Oh he would be mainstream in South Africa and Zimbabwe where the state is doing exactly what our Host points out has proven disastrous time and again – but with the added benefit of 'the African Union' to facilitate implementation. So the borders have gone and Ramaphosa is pushing for a single currency 'the Afro'. Only Nigerians have had the wit to refuse to sign up.
I would argue that without Remainers, there would be no debate on this site. I welcome it. Robust argument helps sharpen my views.
Besides, I support May's deal and am still hopeful a deal can be struck. I never supported No Deal as I believe it risks Brexit entirely if it goes wrong.
It's like going all in at poker. Great if we pull it off. But what if it doesn't work? Blithe optimism doesn't quite cut it for me.
Nobody *wants* No Deal. But it has to be a real threat in any negotiation.
May's deal is worse than No Deal. It is designed so that it does not work for us.
Just heard Boris is proposing to suspend parliament.
Again, I think this is rash. I say slow and steady, get a deal and keep our cards hidden.
This appears to be whacking our cards down on the table and hoping everything comes up trumps. Very risky I think.
Julie Williams
I admit that "the will of the people" is a somewhat unfortunate phrase but it is meant to represent democracy and voters frustration at democracy being thwarted.
If you don't like democracy, what do you want?
As Sir John Redwood says: failed Marxist states aren't "true" according to modern day Marxists because…they fail, they become dictatorships or oligarchs because that's human nature.
Let's not go too starry-eyed about Parliamentary Sovereignty either…
The UK Parliament operated for hundreds of years neither representing not caring about the bulk of the population and had to be dragged kicking and screaming towards "Universal Suffrage" largely to prempt the revolutions which took place on continental Europe.
Parliamentary Sovereignty exists today because we, the populace, vote people to represent us and provide the money, it's a mechanism which is necessary because direct democracy is impossible due to the size of the electorate and geographical distances .We all know that it's a bit of a mess but the British tend to say "if it's not broke, don't fix it".Guess what:many people believe it is broken after the last three years of Bercow and "party hoppers" and a lot of reforms can no longer be ignored.
At least you acknowledge that the fascism of the 1930's arose from socialism, Oswald Moseley was a Labour Mp.It makes me smile when left-wingers label ordinary tory/brexit voters "fascist" or"Nazi": clueless.
Parliament is attempting to trample over the People. I know whose side I am on. Did you see Liz Truss signing a trade deal with South Korea last week? There's sensible cooperation for you – and all without pooling sovereignty and handing a cut of our national treasure to Seoul.
Yes, the extreme reactionary demagogues try to steal the clothes of revolutionaries.
But Marx was arguably the first social scientist, and as such, why are people who are interested in the merits or otherwise of his studies labelled "Marxists"?
We don't tag physicists as "Einsteinists" or chemists as "Priestleyists" do we?
Might it just be that he nailed some utterly fundamental truths, as well as being erroneous on other points, just as the outstanding Isaac Newton was?
Do we judge other scientists only by their mistakes? Of course nor.
formuls57
@ Martin in Cardiff "…Marx was arguably the first social scientist"
! – and I suppose owed nothing to Hegel?
Martin . …Marx was arguably the first social scientist, no – social quack!
Isaac Newton believed in alchemy. Was he a quack too?
Yes of course he was, he was also a great scientist and mathematician . That my friend is why we never ever just trust to "experts" because even the best and brightest in their field can be complete numpties about other things .
Had a twitter debate with a leading brain surgeon who was a main contributor to the yellowhammer report about drug shortages. I asked what experience he had of import/export, supply chain, Just in Time, drug manufacture, etc and he just kept telling me he was an eminent surgeon in the NHS .
To answer your question people are labelled Marxist because like John McDonnell they label themselves that way . All members of cults do that .
Marx who by the way was an idle lazy hypocrite who lived off the earnings of Engles family ( you know the ones exploiting the workers in his Manchester textile factory) He got one thing right. The proletariat should control the means of production. We do because we've moved way past a time when capital was the basis for success and its now brains, talent and hard work that creates success. The ones still demanding communism/socialism tend to be the dim, lazy and incompetent . Free markets have produced the greatest good to mankind , as every single piece of factual data testifies
Totally the reverse of reality as usual.
Capitalism had largely cured poverty in this nation. I mean true poverty.
The cultural Marxists – with no raison detre – went about causing *chaos* by creating its client victim groups and destabilising the majority way of life. "Racism" took on a new, amorphous meaning as distinct from the Alabama style persecution and segregation it originally described – one can now be unconsciously racist, institutionally racist, racist for merely questioning a policy without mention of race. This to attack and dismantle the settled community and cause chaos by the rapid destruction of their established laws and conventions.
The same with LBGTQ to attack the family unit with. Feminism to attack the father with. Obesity has – according to them – been caused by capitalist inflicted poverty "people can't afford to eat properly" yet yesterday I bought six apples and a tin of mackerel for £1.20, but obesity is now the evil of capitalism and not the fault of the individual. And latterly Thunberg-ist Youth-ism to attack the elderly and the energy industry with.
The cultural Marxists have us in a death grip and it is WE who have been trampled on by Parliament – not the other way around.
"What we need is an icon, a saint. Someone who is untouchable, unquestionable and unassailable and who politicians can only be seen to look upon fawningly or risk censure. What better than an enigmatic schoolgirl with special needs." This is the Thunberg-ist cult I describe in my comment above.
She is not there to spark debate but to close it down completely.
Newmania So you don't believe in the voting system? Tell us how you would feel if the vote had been to remain and parliament went against that? Is it your way or no way? Bigoted or what?
So you welcome today's proposal by our (unelected) Boris government to ask the Queen to suspend parliament?
So are you saying that Brown's assumption of No 10's purple should have led to an immediate general election?
Oggy
Posted August 28, 2019 at 12:05 pm | Permalink
MH, yes I do seeing as it is the only way to ensure we get as good a deal if possible if a deal is what we have to have or we can just leave which is what most of us voted for. Do keep up dear. We are supposed to have a democratic parliament but obviously that is out of your depth.
Meanwhile Margaret, perhaps you and Newmania would like to answer my question. How would you feel about it all if it were the other way around? You would make a good politician. Get asks a question and come back with something totally different. I'm sure Sourbry would welcome you.
Of course I do. It's sensible, rational in view of the fact that Parliament has both voted for Brexit and against almost every other proposal, legal and there are no sensible alternatives. Finally, as an absolute clincher, the ultimate response for those who disagree is to win a vote of no confidence. The reason for the howls of protest this morning are because the Remain side feel they're unlikely to win such a vote. The arguments against the prorogation are that it reduces the time for parliament to debate alternatives. This is total nonsense in view of the fact that MPs had the authority to cancel the parliamentary recess and chose not to exercise it. The same people now call this is crisis, after several weeks holiday in the sun. It is complete nonsense MH, as has been pointed out to you many times, to suggest that BJ is unelected. A vote of no confidence is the way for parliament to stop things. They can't win it. In the words of 'It ain't half hot Mum', oh dear, what a shame, never mind. We're leaving the EU, MH, Andy, Newmania etc. Better get used to it.
In March 2019 the Speaker Bercow called for parliament to be prorogued in order to allow a third vote on Mays bill
In 1997, John Major prorogued parliament at a time that avoided parliamentary debate of the Parliamentary Commissioner's report on the cash-for-questions affair
In 1948 the Attlee government prorogued parliament to drive through a nationalisation bill
Its a perfectly constitutional thing to do unlike say
Not implementing a democratic vote or like voting through by a large majority Article 50 and then trying to stop it
You still dont know that our PM's aren't elected….
Yes and now look at the hypocrite !………crying 'Constitutional outrage' can you believe it ? Bercow of all people complaining after what he's done with the constitution. That guy needs forcibly flinging out on his backside.
You know that lot crack on about Boris's proroguing being an affront to democracy, what the hell do they think their excuse is !
Bloody hypocrites.
"So you welcome today's proposal by our (unelected) Boris government to ask the Queen to suspend parliament? "
Yes it's brilliant ! It's got the remain hypocrites foaming at the mouth.
It's highly amusing watching the losers calling foul. 'Not fair, waah, waah ! LMAO – out come the rattles from the prams.
The funniest is 'Bercow the biased' calling it a constitutional outrage, obviously the thought hasn't crossed his mind that he himself is a constitutional outrage.
Marxists are in essence people haters. They can not and wish not to understand the benefit of individual freedom, of expression and action. They must have control, and when they don't or can't achieve it turn to oppression. In the end they kill people.
I haven't heard any of them clamouring for our democratically-elected MPs to be hung on piano wire, as we see on right wing blogs all over the web. I haven't heard of many claiming to be marxists even.
No, I think that we can see where most of the haters and would-be executionists are.
You say you attended Grammar School ?
Indeed, the haters are the SNP and the like.
New maniac ….it is not a grip on imagination, it is largely a reaction of envy. There will always be some who are entrepreneurs, others just work hard, some want to be told and rely on others to prrovide work. This is and always will be the situation without force being used.
David Maples
Well said Fred H! Some of us are movers and makers, some merely dutiful servants, and the rest are criminals and peasants. Thus it always was…and always will be!
Isn't Boris offering compromise and cooperation with our neighbours, based on an FTA such as we have with other friendly countries around the world? Why does cooperation have to involve political union?
On the subject of Today's post I believe that buffoon Juncker gave an appreciation of Marx on the 200th anniversary of his birth. I guess all the central planning and the hostility towards emigrants who want to leave the centrally planned paradise might appeal to those EU-federalist types?
You ask:- Why do advocates of Marxism as a political programme always claim states that followed their ideas were not true Marxist states, because they usually create poverty and tyranny combined?
Because they need to make some excuse for the appalling damage and millions of deaths their agenda has caused. They cannot bring themselves to face that reality. In essence what they are trying to create is a state controlled prison from cradle to grave, With the whole nation (save those with Zil lane passes) as inmates and with enforced working for them. How on earth could it turn out to be anything but an evil, death causing disaster? Let us hope Boris can actually deliver and keep the Marxists well away from the levers of power.
Iain Moore
"In essence what they are trying to create is a state controlled prison from cradle to grave, "
Which is why they are so much in favour of all this Climate Change business. Eco loonery is a godsend for Marxists for here is something they can use to dictate how people live their lives, and something that is guaranteed to impoverish us, but quite why the Conservatives have become these willing activists for all things Climate Change I haven't been able to figure out, for it would appear they are assisting the Marxists.
I think the leftists always claim that the failed state did not implement Marxism (et al) correctly or that it was not proper Marxism ( or whatever strand they favour).
Next time …they claim…we will get it right!
Heaven help us all…why don't they just give up?
StephenJ
All socialists suffer from the same problem.
They do not understand the human being, instead they base their whole philosophy on one of wishful thinking.
I don't know about other countries, but here most people are conservative. Some vote for Labour, and some vote for the CONservative Party. Even so, the situation remains that those conservatives got born, had some education and went to work, and they didn't do it for nothing. They did it to secure a roof over their heads, to keep clothes on their back and keep the wolf from the door. All very necessary for pursuing the main reason for living, raising the next generation.
What some nasty german said some years back will only make any sense if it can be adopted into the above lifestyle without compromising this effort, and we all know that this can never happen.
In short, all forms of socialism are anti-human.
God knows what it is for, or how its representatives cannot see that their theories butter no parsnips.
They show a compete lack of understanding mainly of human nature. They also a lack any real understanding of science, engineering, economics, evolution, innovation, freedom of choice, logic, reason, the need for incentives and very much else. Deluded chip on the shoulder simpletons in the main like Corbyn and Mc Donnall. The Conservative party too is also full of daft lefties like Major, Osborne, Hammond and May. They have delivered the and most idiotic & highest taxes for 50 years after all. Yet public service are dire and declining. Government waste and misdirection is everywhere. So much fat (and taxes) that could be cut if we ever got a proper Conservative government or if Boris delivered one.
Agreed,I think that the ordinary British person has a sense of fairness: you deal honestly with me and I will deal fairly with you.We don't swallow the politics of envy, because why shouldn't we aspire to better given the chance?We are also a bit complacent and don't resort to riots at the drop of a hat like the French, but don't think that means you can take us for fools.
Over the last three years, our House of Commons has taken an already stretched patience and tested to breaking point, sorry boys and girls, time for change.
Er … I think you are confusing socialism and Marxism.
I'm no fan of Marx, but all the major parties, including the conservative party, embrace many principles which could be called socialist – including the welfare state and trying to deal with the worst excesses of inequality (not always successfully).
Admittedly, it is a very fuzzy definition, and can mean entirely different things. Blairite socialism and Corbynite socialism being a case in point.
As Mikhail Bakunin put it (Statism & Anarchy,1873): "When people are being beaten with a stick,they are not much happier if it is called "The Peoples Stick"."
Why is Marxism and totalitarianism and those who promote such oppressive systems of government given a platform and treated with adoration while those who promote individualism, freedom and liberty treated with contempt and condemned and slandered using the idiotic term that is 'far right'?
It is my belief that western governments see value in Marxist ideas regarding social control and State intervention which may explain why this poisonous, barbarous politics is allowed a platform without condemnation and demonisation
The BBC even promote communism using presenters, discussion show participants and quiz shows. It is utterly abhorrent
Not enough is being done to show the horrors of what happens when these ideas are put into practice. Instead we are bombarded on an almost daily basis with programmes about National Socialism and propaganda from the State regarding the rise of the 'far right'. Anyone with half a brain can see this term is used to control, slander and tarnish anyone who isn't termed 'left'.
It says something about how weak the Tories are when proponents of oppression are celebrated rather than demonised
Of course the British state can't condemn in an open forum Mao and Stalin for fear of diplomatic backlash but these two monsters murdered millions in the name of collectivisation and political power.
It is time the left-right narrative is put to bed, destroyed and laid waste. Let's demonise Marxism and those who promote it in the way we demonise Fascism and those who promote that form of government
It is important to note that all forms of political extremism are rooted in socialism
Why have you held this post in moderation along with m other one today ?
@Dominic – INDEED
It's all down to the romantic – skewed – nature of communism, given to it by the MSM and novel writers…
Everybody working together – because they are forced to does not for a free or progressive society…… and those that believe in communism as a religion have failed the first test a sentient Human being must pass – What is rationality, and what is aberrative dogma?
Senior Labour party officials such as Corbyn and McDonnell happily pose in front of communist flags with little criticism. Imagine the reaction if the Conservative, Brexit party or UKIP equivalents gave speeches at rallies with swastika banners behind them.
Excellent analysis Dominic ✔️10/10
So why not admit that the NHS will never work.
Indeed as stuctured it can never be efficient.
You cannot even get to see a GP for 16 days. Where people to pay (say £50) they would nearly always get to see the right GP with the right specialism almost always the same day. I read that CCTV footage has revealed 1,500 alleged crimes at a psychiatric unit, where patients were physically and mentally abused in Northern Ireland. The tip of an iceberg.
The NHS only works at all due to the fact that is has many dedicated people working for it. The system, management and funding systems will never work.
The NHS is a valuable political football and ideology will always trump rationality.
The N.H.S has certainly worked very well for me and everyone I know. Indeed it saved my life on one occasion.
Indeed, just look at America, which still hasn't managed full coverage despite spending a far greater percentage of its G.D.P on health coverage.
Dear Leaver
The NHS which is a government department never saved your life. The Doctors and nurses who attended to you saved your life. If you think that only doctors and nurses that work for the NHS save lives you are severely deluded . The USA has a very poor public health system. However there are 18 countries with FAR BETTER systems than the NHS . Why not focus on French or Swiss, or indeed Singaporean health care which are all far better than the NHS .
A fair point. I actually favour the Australian model myself. It's the argument that the N.H.S will never work that I object to.
Leaver: "Indeed it [NHS] saved my life on one occasion."
Of course, those the NHS actually, kill. They aren't on blogs telling us how bad their experience was. Are they?
if it had been up to the NHS I would be dead.
I have lived in many countries, and many do healthcare a lot better than the NHS.
Anecdotally, I've seen both successes and catastrophic failure which the system covered up.
By no means the worse healthcare system in the world, the NHS could be better value for money but instead of having a rational debate, the Left immediately say that the Tories will destroy the NHS.
Do they have have good reason to believe that a trade deal with the USA will lead to privatisation of the NHS?
"Work" is a relative term.
We see different systems on the Continent which appear to deliver better results.
However, if the NHS were scrapped, where is the guarantee that it would be replaced by a better, rather than by a far worse arrangement?
After all, people on the Continent generally have far better pensions than the UK too, don't they? Seventy-five, anyone?
You have a point, but be careful of what you wish.
After the war all the developed countries rationalised health and for this reason I always think the supposed achievement of Attlee`s government is over egged. Churchill himself set out a road map to a new fairer society and there was a consensus in broad terms .
In the event the project was grabbed by the far left and has , ever since , been the Flag which socialists wave . In fact it is far from optimal to put it mildly and its worst drawback is that it is too big.
The best performing system in the French which has elements of insurance and strongly regional management, it is also simply better funded.
Nigel Farrage started out a Thatcherite critic of Marxist health provision but ended up endorsing its as the property of the collective English on which foreigners were trying to get their mucky mits
Thus Gladstonian Economic Liberalism and Nationalism compromises with Fascism and is eventually consumed by it . This is the tension is at the heart of Brexit .
John Redwood is a Thatcherite at heart . The Brexit constituency is nothing of the sort and has a very different attitude to global Britain. This contradiction amongst others is why Brexit will fail .
In my opinion, the NHS should NOT be scrapped, it should be redesigned from the base up to have a workable and affordable funding system that will provide for a carefully pre-considered programme of medical aims.
(Although I am strongly tempted to add that first of all, 75% of senior NHS management should be (made redundant ed))
The pensions that the French and Germans have are indeed very good. As always in life you get what you pay for . They pay in far more than we do, therefore if you want a similar pension here, pay into your own pension scheme. My private pension will pay me out £35k per year when I claim it ( thats after my 25% tax free lump sum)
I am in favour of health provision free at the point of need/use
The NHS was purely put in place in the belief that it would save money by centralization ( the biggest lie of every bureaucrat ever) prior to the NHS there were MORE hospitals in the UK than there are now. Most were operated by either charities, church or not for profits but mostly by local government. Just about every borough had a council owned and run hospital.
You ask a good question about guarantees that a new health system would be better than the old NHS. Easy way to show that, competition. Run the new system alongside the old and see which one people prefer
Oh, just like the Tories ran the privatised utilities alongside a not-for-profit publicly-controlled system, so that people could see which they preferred you mean?
Did you come down in the last shower of rain???
Yeh exactly like that. We immediately saw the improvement when privatised and no one with a brain would go back now even if it wasn't illegal to have nationalised industries under EU law ..
ps So you know The Blair ( Labour ) government privatisation policy known as the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) – was Introduced into the London Underground, the NHS and schools, and the same Labour government put in place the framework to sell off Royal Mail .
I think you'll find that the French bought our electricity utilities whilst Gordon Brown was PM
You are a bit typical of schoolboy socialists whose answer to everything is yeh but Tories. Its a pointless argument as I'm NOT a tory and I dont care which government got it wrong
Noneoftheabove
Because it does. I'm willing to consider that without the NHS, you and many other commentators on this forum, including me, would not be alive today.
Like all organisations, it has scope for improving productivity and research but it has elevated the health of the nation.
We are sicker than ever before. The more chemicals (drugs) we consume the worse we become. The USA citizenry consume more drugs than any other nation per capita and are sicker than any other nation per capita.
'None of the above'.
The USA does not have the NHS.
It has a system which has evolved in the private sector, rather like we had before the creation of the NHS.
I for one am grateful that we did not tread the same health service path that the USA did.
Oh my word , please go and do some research .
Prior to the NHS there were MORE hospitals in the UK than now. Most were municipal, run by the local council very few were private for profit . The NHS was formed to centralise health care costs . It failed
Why does everyone who is a fan of the NHS always compare it to the only one thats worse the USA. Why dont you compare it to French, German, Swiss, Dutch, Singaporean health care systems ? If its so good how come no other country has copied it? Why is the NHS consistently in the bottom third of health care outcomes?
Indeed. Medicine has become a crutch for the results of bad choices: inactivity, choosing processed foods, eating to excess, smoking…
They are too often used to treat symptoms of completely avoidable disease – moreover there is a widespread attitude "I'll carry on doing bad things to my body – the NHS knows how to sort it out when it goes wrong. Or maybe I'll even drop dead painlessly but that's a long way off in the future."
There is a vast difference between being kept alive and being healthy.
Agree Lyn. Isn't it about time diabetes in the young was tackled without drugs to control it? People who have been diabetic for years have managed to be free of it simply by changing their diets. Stay off the sugary drinks, stop stuffing fast food down your beck, exercise a little more and lose weight. Apparently more than half of children are now overweight and in years gone by diabetes was not seen in children. It is becoming a problem now. People must take responsibility for their own health and take the strain off the NHS and at the same time get a better quality of life. Looking around my local supermarket I was amazed at the number of severely obese people with trolley loads of junk food.
we are still nowhere near as bad as many other countries as regards numbers of overweight people.
as for young diabetics, for many their immune system destroys their pancreas and its absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, its a random event which science poorly understands. you destroy the emotional well being of such children when you peddle such half truths. its simply not acceptable.
If the NHS was all that its devotees claim, why over many years have thousands of people been sent abroad, or have gone at their own expense for treatment either denied to them or it having not been available on the NHS. Some of them had to suffer abuse for their actions too.
Because they were impatient. Some of them were diagnosed as untreatable and refused to accept the verdict, allowing themselves to be persuaded by the offers of service from profit making medical services abroad.
The NHS is not perfect and a long way from being so but it compares very favourable to any other national medical service in the world that does not require any patients to have funds and/or insurance.
some of us preferred being alive to being left to die by the NHS, impatient is what you feel when you are at the back of the queue for ice cream not what you feel when you are being left to die, or have severe symptoms, for want of simple routine treatment.
NO IT DOESNT
It comes way down the list , in fact 18th in terms of efficacy of free at the point of use health care . It is bottom of the cancer and heart disease charts
Most would agree that the do'ers in the NHS are wonderful, caring people who want the best for those needing help. Where our opinion lies on those employees who push paper files, deal with appointments, 'manage' activities, take decisions, allocate budgets is another matter.
some do'ers are good and some are crap. the crap ones keep going because the individual citizen has no power to take their business elsewhere. its a natural consequence of "take it or leave it" rationed and allocated care than crap do'ers are allowed to continue for far longer than they would be if patients could take their business elsewhere and force change quickly that way.
Iain,
But surely apart from Gov't dictate, the NHS directors, managers, budget decision makers are the ones who should be tackling the failures to organise efficient use of in many cases ample staffing to ensure best use of people, facilities, equipment, training and to set in motion organisation to identify poor execution?
Fred H,
Managers in all businesses are of variable quality. The thing that forces ongoing improvements and optimisation is not the management layer, its the end consumers being able to take their business elsewhere. Thats why the private sector is a formidable force for wealth production, and why accepting failure of business units should be normal, and resources following success is needed.
noneofthe above
I'm afraid the data doesn't support your claim . The NHS comes consistently in the bottom third of global healthcare judged on clinical outcomes
Survival rates of NHS patients are amongst the worst in the Western world
The world health organisation ranks the UK overall as 18th , Germany 25th the USA 37th
The abysmal performance of the USA is all the more remarkable when you consider it spends over twice as much per head as the UK on health.
( Much of this disappears into med mal Insurances litigation and so on).
The USA has , in other words outsourced bureaucracy to the legal and Insurance world, and ends up with the worst system imaginable.
Of course you can look at it lots of ways but its hard to argue the NHS is not performing reasonably well , perhaos it could cure Libertarian of Munchausen syndrome, or perhaps it is too far gone ?
Sources please. The last survey I saw the NHS ranked very well vs other systems on just about all criteria – except patient survival
You xxxxxxx, you tell us rightly that its 18th then compare it to the ones below it. What?
Why not compare it to France, Swiss, Dutch, Singaporean all way above the NHS . You know compare it and learn from the 17 better ones. I know of not one single person that has ever wanted a US style health system in this country and I certainly dont .
You dont even know what Munchausen syndrome is you fool
Unbelievable even for your stupid level of posts
Ian!
National Insurance works.
The NHS doesn't work in its current form because for the most part it is has a top down approach in its government. As in life one size doesn't fit all, the requirements in one hospital differ from another. The requirements in one geographical are differ from another.
I picked up a copy of the Marx Manifesto some years ago. What I found was the rantings of an immature student. I thought it would never work, as it doesn't take account of human nature. There's no motivation for the ordinary person who probably has little affection for the State.
Education today is pretty Gramschi dominated – the assumption that the only way is trendy leftie liberalism. (Climate Change, Safeguarding, Egalitarianism not competition, State control, practival abolition of all forms of religious thought, LGBT Rights.)
And didn't you forget the middle passage – very strongly written indeed – about the scandal of Victorian marriage?"The Communists have no need to introduce the community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial. Our bourgeoisie, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing other people's wives…."
We have virtually abolished marriage now.
Marxism – Nice in theory horrible in practice.
Marxism lives but in a more subtle form. Many MP's, even supposedly Conservative ones tend to cone out with Left and Far-left policies and ideas. CMD and his trusty sidekick, Gideon were one such.
We have also Marxism in our institutions. These prefer Socialism as it affords them much power.
Marxism has never been as thoroughly vilified as say, National Socialism, even though Marxism has resulted in far more deaths and misery. It is high time that this massive disparity is addressed and, the Hammer & Sicke is regarded with equal or more distain as is the Swatsticker.
"Just one of the ten proposals has gained widespread support today and been adopted throughout the advanced world." ??
What about # 2? "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." There's not many places without one and I would expect that Marx wouldn't disapprove of the UK system.
Arguably, Marx could have been advocating a State owned Bank of England in his #5 They certainly call the shots with their setting of interest rates. The commercial sector are still largely in private hands except when fail and have to be bailed out.
#6 concerns Govt control of communications, transport, and the State. Notwithstanding recent privatisations, we are most of the way towards what Marx was advocating. HS2, for example, is a Govt initiative.
#8 refers to an equal liability to work. Isn't that nearly all of us? Silly ideas, such as paying people for not working in the form of a so-called Universal Basic Income, tend to come from political centrists rather than the Marxist left.
#9 "Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries". That's already happened albeit not quite as Marx might have intended.
#10 "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's
factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial
We don't have the last part of #10. It's worth another look I'd say. The formal school system isn't for everyone. Many teenagers would be better off in an apprenticeship from the age of 15 or so.
percy openshaw
Many thanks for this interesting and instructive summary. One element I would highlight is Marx's innate authoritarianism. Deprivation of property and income is to be accompanied by forced labour, whilst cities are to be abolished in favour of "equal distribution" of people across "the land". There's a straight line from all this to the activities of the Khmer Rouge. Many nineteenth century figures realised the danger at the time; many whom the cultural left routinely claims as its own. Flaubert, in "Bouvard et Pecuchet", explicitly condemns socialism as tyranny. Mill and Toqueville were equally well aware of the dangers of state power and state prescription. Most powerfully of all, Dostoevsky in "The Possessed" demonstrates the amoral, extremist consequentialism of the left and the fake Utopias which foster it. This is why the modern left screams and shouts so much; they are trying to drown out the voice of their own consciences.
Political correctness social engineering also has its roots in Marxism. Some claim the 11 points below originated in the Frankfurt School of social theory and critical philosophy. Whether this is true, or whether it was created by followers of cultural Marxist theory elsewhere, is open to debate. However, what cannot be disputed is that these exist and have been implemented as policy across the political spectrum since Blair, culminating with OTT control freakery May.
1. The creation of racism offences
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools' and teachers' authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
They have been instrumental in destroying our relatively benign society and culture. Contemporary Politicians have a lot to answer for with their 'Divide and Rule' policies. They are the ones intent on, or complicit in destruction of our economy and social harmony in our country with their overbearing interference in other people's right to self-determination and right to a private life.
When in a debate with my son about 'conspiracy theories' I asked him which of the above could he recognize. He recognized all and it was an eye opener for him.
I am merely one voter, he is another and when deciding where our X goes on the ballot paper we bide by the Voltaire's principle "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
Marxism seems 'fair' to those who see only the surface; believers in an ever-greater State seem to think that those who are in control are always benign and unselfish paragons. Perhaps it is like religion – 'there must be something to it or surely all these people wouldn't be advocating it and supporting it', whether the 'it' is rule by a one-Party government, a dictator or the Divine Right of Kings.
Came across the following yesterday:
Jack Cade: "Be brave, for your captain is brave and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven ha'penny loaves sold for a penny; the three-hooped pot should have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small (weak) beer. All the realm shall be in common and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to graze. And when I am King there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord."
Doesn't it sound like Shakespeare foresaw Mr Corbyn when he was writing Henry VI?
So, the left's idea of a land-tax slots into Marx's proposal, albeit not tightly. I do wish the Conservatives would mount more of an attack against the idea whenever it pops up.
JR: "Some people bandy around the label Marxism too easily, without recognising what Marxism is. "
Let's also understand the poisonous ground that Marxism sprang from. Marx, by a man – Giuseppe Mazzini who knew him.
"a destructive spirit whose heart was filled with hatred rather than love of mankind… extraordinarily sly, shifty and taciturn. Marx is very jealous of his authority as leader of the Party; against his political rivals and opponents he is vindictive and implacable; he does not rest until he has beaten them down; his overriding characteristic is boundless ambition and thirst for power. Despite the communist egalitarianism which he preaches he is the absolute ruler of his party; admittedly he does everything himself but he is also the only one to give orders and he tolerates no opposition,"
So it's no surprise to find the scribbling's Marx produced, resulted in, actual hell on earth for millions of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians.
It's also worth pointing out that while he was living in Manchester, through the offices of his Capitalist chum Engles, he lived a lifestyle that by some estimates put him in the top 1% of British society.
A wealthy man then, who did nothing tangible for the poor, despite having ample means.
The prototype enthusiastically embraced by nearly all Socialists ever, since.xxxxxxxx et al, ad nauseam.
The question is: how do you debate these points with a Marxist? What
overall philosophy do you assume when you critique Marxism? What
makes you think that a Marxist should view your criticisms as "just"? Is your
morality also his? What is your morality? "You", i.e. the Tories, need to put
your creed on the table so that it may be equally open to scrutiny.
blatant
Well John we can see that you're earning your knighthood the hard way- what has this communism got to do with anything? an aside to an aside
Reply Plenty of allegations of Marxism flying around, and some want to push parts of the Marx agenda again
A very good reminder of what Marxism was about, beliefs and implementation. These can be measured against what we see and hear going on within political, unions, and other revolutionary groups.
Marxism and fascism are two sides of the same coin – both equally destructive.
I don't notice any 'mainstream' politician in the UK advocating either – except ……..
So why do you call people who were conservatives a mere generation ago 'far right' and 'extremists' ?
Because they are?
"Optimists live longer" reports the BBC endlessly yesterday. Well perhaps they do but is this not a typical BBC confusion of cause and effect? Rather like all those "poorer people die earlier" stories.
Surely it is more likely that people in ill heath often tend to be unable to earn much due to their condition and people with life threatening heath conditions understandably tend to be somewhat less Optimistic?
People who go into business themselves are however usually optimistic (though sometimes mistakenly). After all if you were not optimistic you would stick with your safe dependable job (unless made redundant perhaps – often a blessing in disguise). This despite all the daft obstacles government lumbers them with. Can Andrea Leadsom please scrap the "Making Tax Digital" red tape tax.
It is costing me several £thousand and a lot of staff time for zero benefit for me, the business or the government and lower profits and thus lower CT tax due. Which idiot came up with that one was it Osborne or Hammond?
We will continue a gentle and relentless slide to the LEFT until we curtail the number of career politicians entering parliament. They are bright, well read and are very good at public speaking but they have little or no idea how the real world ticks. Once elected their main aim is to stay elected and protect their income by pandering to popular ideas rather than promote what is the right course for the Nation as a whole.
No one should be eligible for election to parliament until they have had, at the very least, 15 years in the big wide world of industry, commerce and/or research and that does not include sitting on quasi government boards or bodies.
This complete mess that we currently have in parliament over Brexit would not have happened with more worldly MPs but instead we have a bunch running around like headless chickens trying to protect their backsides.
What on earth was Boris doing voting for the WA when it came up for the third time?
He needs to have feet held to the fire so we come away from the EU completely on 31st October 2019 and as things stand at the present time 'No Deal' is, as Farage states, by far the best deal.
"The proletariat (wage working class) will use its political su­premacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of pro­duction in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the working class, and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible."
Freedom from monopoly …
Question 1: Are you a Communist?
Answer: Yes.
Question 2: What is the aim of the Communists?
Answer: To organise society in such a way that every member of it can develop and use all his capabilities and powers in complete freedom and without thereby infringing the basic conditions of this society.
Question 3: How do you wish to achieve this aim?
Answer: By the elimination of private property and its replacement by community of property.
Question 4: On what do you base your community of property?
Answer: Firstly, on the mass of productive forces and means of subsistence resulting from the development of industry, agriculture, trade and colonisation, and on the possibility inherent in machinery, chemical and other resources of their infinite extension.
Secondly, on the fact that in the consciousness or feeling of every individual there exist certain irrefutable basic principles which, being the result of the whole of historical development, require no proof.
Question 5: What are such principles?
Answer: For example, every individual strives to be happy. The happiness of the individual is inseparable from the happiness of all, etc.
Question 6: How do you wish to prepare the way for your community of property?
Answer: By enlightening and uniting the proletariat.
…and so on – Demonstrating why communism fails – it dulls the soul by taking decisions away from those that know, proving once again that freedom is about making your own life. We are individuals, not cogs. Individuals produce, inspire and innovate. Cogs do just what they have to do.
Indeed decisions need to be taken as close to "the coal face" (or indeed the family) as possible – not by someone remote in government who has never even seen a coal face, a mine or even a shovel!
Very good description.
Sounds like the Borg.
Assimilate!
Disingenuous, dope Rory Stewart on radio four just now. He thinks Boris will come back to May's putrid W/A and yet he says he now believes in Brexit. The W/A is not remotely Brexit you fool. He will even set up an alternative parliament (he says) if Boris dares to prorogue Parliament.
These fools really do want to destroy the UK by making it a vassal state of the EU, destroy the Conservative Party, destroy democracy, destroy any negotiating position for Boris and give us Corbyn/Mc Donnall/SNP Marxism and a trip to Venezuela. Traitors is surely rather too mild a description for these dire people.
At least the LibDims are honest that they want to destroy Brexit – unlike Rory Steward!
Has any of the decenters to the idea of a sovereign parliament ever read the WA.
They just love to contradict themselves.
http://www.monarchist.org.uk/the-queen-in-government.html
"There is one and only one occasion on which Parliament is allowed to meet without a Royal summons, and that is when the Sovereign has died. In these such sorrowful circumstances, the Succession to the Crown Act of 1707 provides that, if Parliament is not already sitting in session, it must immediately meet and sit. The Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 provides that, if the Sovereign dies after the Parliament has been dissolved, the immediately preceding Parliament can sit for up to six months at a time, if not prorogued or dissolved before then."
I must add the caveat that the web page is dated 2014 so it is possible that this is no longer true.
✔️10/10 Lifelogic. In the end these ghastly people will go to any lengths to stay in the EU, but why for goodness sake?
Lifelogic,
Having listened to BJ for the last few months, it is pretty clear that his issue is with the backstop. He is evidently willing to compromise if this feature is removed, or even sufficiently fudged. The WA is not dead as far as he is concerned. I think Stuart is correct in saying BJ aspires to pass a modified WA – if he somehow survived a vote of no confidence.
The prorogation might bring the moment of truth forward. Or the Remainers may decide to hold fire until October 14th, when they can win a vote of no confidence and form their own (temporary) government at the last minute.
steadyeddie
This debate is well past it's sell by date and is a red herring, perhaps emphasis on the 'red'. All successful states now are variations on a Social Democrat model; the debate revolves around balancing levels of freedom and equality. Perfectly valid to present favouring one over the other but to suggest otherwise is merely to create monsters that have been slayed since the collapse of the USSR. The extreme left and right are minorities who can be safely ignored unless they propose violent methods when they should be brought to book to the fullest extent of the law.
Iain Dale interviewed Rachael Maskell shortly after 7pm last night on LBC. How she would be labelled politically I don't know, but she worried me as much as any Labour MP.
Indeed she was totally wrong headed, even by the dire Corbyn's Labour standards.
Mary Maddock
My (probably simplistic) understanding was that c1914 Marxism failed, in as much as the working classes refused to rise up. Instead they chose to go to war for king and country.
After this the workers were cast aside as a bad job and cultural Marxism was employed as a means of changing society..
There is no doubt surely that we're seeing this in everyday life?
First they had to destroy Christianity ( a threat to Marxist power).
Then they destroy the family and all norms etc etc.
World turned upside down….nearly achieved?
Anyway…Marx was an extremely nasty man a typical, sponging unwashed lefty who got his maid (!) pregnant and then chucked her out.
Yet iconised.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/replacing-backstop-not-even-close-as-an-alternative-946673.html
"Tánaiste Simon Coveney has said UK proposals to replace the backstop are "not even close" to being an alternative as the impasse over Brexit continues.
His comments came amid fresh speculation that London wants to keep the North aligned with EU trade rules, a move that could prevent any new border checks. The plan could allow the UK pursue free trade deals with other countries, the Wall Street Journal suggests."
Well, that is what the Irish Commissioner Phil Hogan said in November 2017:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit
"Mr Hogan, the EU's agriculture commissioner, said Ireland would "play tough to the end" over the border issue, and said it was a "very simple fact" that "if the UK or Northern Ireland remained in the EU customs union, or better still the single market, there would be no border issue"."
Whereupon Theresa May bravely insisted that it must be the whole of the UK which would be kept under the economic thumb of the EU in perpetuity, not just Northern Ireland, and presented that as a negotiating triumph.
I look forward to the response from Michael Gove's rapid rebuttal unit.
Maybe the fear is that the "Marxists" ( admittedly a somewhat inaccurate term when there are other strains of marxist thought) are hammering on the gates?
Never mind the minuscule interpretations of doctrine.
They are all scary.
They all want to take away our freedom.
And it feels like it is happening.
Who can deny that our freedom of speech has gone? Very soviet.
Had a slight prob with Captcha code causing an anomaly.
Not trying to have two profiles.
To achieve Marxism you have to first destroy all existing structures of government and control.
Which Corbyn knows to well, then look at how the UK Parliament and how they are behaving. He may get his wish.
Any form of top down control is control by those with the power, is enslavement. That also happens in a capitalist society when the systems permits monopolies. All enterprise should be on the same level playing field and not run by those with the best lobbying ability, as in reality the situation at the moment. All tax should be on the same level basis, why should one sector get an inducement and not another – that creates as is now a situation were the less powerful is subsidizing and funding the bigger boy.
The point of course is that this human race of ours is made up of individuals, that while they can do when they work together. They can also achieve greatness as an individuals as well. Any form of micro management fails but ensuring freedoms with responsibility only has up sides.
A free capitalist society without favoritism, along with a fully functioning democracy may not in all circumstances be best – but it is the safest
But wouldn't allegations of "Marxism" be very bad for Labour?
ie good for everyone else were there to be an election?
No, because most British people, especially robotic Labour voters and the young, still don't understand nor care what Marxism is. This vile creed's been legitimised again by the May, the BBC and other media allies of Labour
Marxism must be demonised and those who propose it prosecuted as would Fascist sympathizers. For far too long this form of totalitarianism's been treated with kid gloves.
I could name many atrocities and genocidal events committed in the name of collectivism but I doubt SJR would print them
Yes of course you are right.
They just don't realise.
Useful idiots in the true sense?
First to be culled after the revolution.
It used to be the case that membership of the communist party debarred one from various jobs etc. Now we have a total reversal.
Those very lefties level accusations of nazism and fascism at people they dont like then wear with pride a badge saying I'm a marxist . You know the people that killed more than 100 million people in the 20th century
alastair harris
Being every so slightly literal, Marxism is defined in his book das kapital, and it's policy implications in the communist manifesto, published by Marx and Engels. I suspect that many so called lefties have only a passing acquaintence with these works, and a blinkered view of the millions of deaths and the well documented poverty that accompanied the various attempts to implement it.
Marxism was founded on the premise of "Do as I say, not as I do".
Four of Marx's children died in poverty while their father pursued his own "dream" and lived off money that Engels got off his capitalist father whilst another child was allegedly born from an affair with his servant .
Let's face it, when people like Marx say that "everybody" should work, they always see themselves in the supervisory capacity and not actually getting their hands dirty .Done the right way, it can actually make some people very well-off!
QS – at last.
Very confused by today's article.
Is JR worried that Tories are being accused of Marxism?
Or is it to do with Labour?
"Marxism" is prob used as a general fear term when ancient freedoms seem threatened? Describing loosely anything reminiscent of soviet Russia or 1984 and other "warning" books.
In recent years there have been attacks on property ownership…vis clamping down on buy to let and even the idea floated that a tenant can not be removed, ever.
( property laws like those seem to vindicate Marx who said (I think) that capitalism seeks to annihilate self-earned private property).
And I do not understand how anyone can deny that we are monitored and censored beyond anyone's wildest nightmares.
Unless of course it has all been made up by MSM to discredit the Tories??
Off to get aspirin and coffee! 😎
bigneil
Comment on Radio Sheffield this morning from Radio Sheffield's Breakfast "presenter" ( I would use another term but it would get blocked ). He says that Boris is a dictator for doing whatever it need to get brexit done and that is undemocratic. Strange how a democratic vote was to Leave but Remainiacs like him and the BBC want to ignore that bit of democracy and be undemocratic themselves, but clearly only want democracy when it suits them.
It's the old, 'never the twain shall meet'; Hegel and Marx believed in the inherent goodness of man, that all are born good, but made evil by society, so the people must be collectivised
by the vanguard, their property confiscated and their freedom of action controlled ie work, societal and military conscription. Christians though believe in Original Sin, that men are universally born evil but made good only by Jesus Christ. Hegelianism is utterly abhorrent in its absurd notion that history is subject to ineluctable laws, and that somehow politicians have no options other than rigorous
control of the masses, that the march of the Left is unstoppable. Noticeable in all such Marxist utopias, is the observation that such revolutions never seem to progress beyond the the 'rule of the vanguard', which precedes the goal of 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which is of itself quite repugnant. Lifelogic is right; it's Zil lanes for the bosses, and interminable queues for sausages and ill fitting boots and shoes for those with two left feet!
Based on their public pronouncements and such policies we know of, it is reasonable to describe the current leadership of the Labour Party as(Having sympathy with Marxism? ed), referencing the points above. McDonnell is a self proclaimed Marxist. Corbyn is most likely (not ed) to have actually read much political philosophy, though he might have managed the communist manifesto as its short and doesn't have too many long words.
Another point to remember is Marx's vicious anti-semitism, which unfortunately we see echoes of today as well in the modern Labour Party.
The latest opinion polls have Labour at around 20%. It must be there are still a lot of people who Are unaware of the evils of Marxist and Marxist-inspired regimes so admired by Corbyn & McDonnell. And perhaps of the anti-semitism also. If they were aware of it Labour ought to be at the sort of levels of support shown for the BNP or perhaps the new look UKIP.
Sorry to have taken your editorial time, I do try to make my posts pass muster by not making defamatory remarks. Is describing someone as a Marxist such a remark? Perhaps it should be, it's certainly a terrible thing to be if you have an knowledge of Marxism and how it's worked out whenever it's been tried.
I also applied what I thought was a reasonable adjective to describe my impression of mr Corbyn's Intellect. Of course I accept that there might be those who think the evidence, including his past academic achievements, point to him being a leading intellectual.
Off Topic I know, smart and correct move by the PM today. He has a programme to get through and it also has the advantage of reducing time for antidemocratic antics in Parliament. Well done Boris!
Like all sensible leaders he surrounds himself with intelligent and resourceful people and I wish him and his team well.
I live near the South coast and I can tell you that I could hear the cries of anguish from parliamentary rebels.
The PM prorogue's Parliament. What's his plan Sir John? I know you're a busy fella but a small article with your thoughts would be most appreciated
You not looking at tv? John had been on several time today outlining his thoughts all about Boris and leaving with no deal- this blog about communism is the sideshow
I think this prorogation is a fuss about nothing, partly for the reasons given by the government, but primarily because the only thing that has changed is that the Remainers won't have a chance to explore ways to force the government to extend A50. The Remainers still have the opportunity to bring down this government and install an emergency/caretaker government to do the deed itself. In essence, prorogation cuts to the chase.
Remarkably (and inadvertently?) the government is clarifying the present state of affairs. We should be grateful for this.
As to what Johnson's plan is, I think it's pretty clear that sufficient fudging of the backstop in the WA will result in him endorsing it and thus attempting to 'deliver Brexit'. The real question is, will Sir John and his fellow spartans put party before country, or will they stand by their principles? Over to you Sir John.
Domonic: "The PM prorogue's Parliament."
If you recall, the Squeaker told former PM Theresa May she could not present essentially the same legislation that Parliament had previously rejected for Parliamentary approval more than once. He then permitted her to present the Withdrawal agreement on two more occasions.
In a new Parliamentary session, that constraint will be removed.
Looks like it's all going to plan, Boris is putting it up to the EU hoping they will blink, but am afraid it's not going to work that way because first on the EU agenda is to remove Farage and his followers from the EU parliament. After that they will bring up the terms of the WA- further along might come talks about the future- later
As long As we are out of the EU, they can do what they like, so that's fine by me and I'm sure it's fine by Nigel.
Boris is trying to convince voters he will get us out, suggesting by 'no deal'.
There is a lot more to do to sway Brexit voters to him, and to keep previous Conservative voters.
Good luck Boris.
More poorly written and unpunctuated multi-ID poster nonsense.
Look, the WA is dead. We are leaving on 31st October. If the EU wants a FTA (and believe me they do), they can apply for one on 1st November. But they'll be in competition with every other country that wants a FTA with the UK. The rest of the world is far more businesslike, and has already been negotiating far more speedily than Brussels can ever manage. The EU will be kicking its heels at the back of the queue.
In 1970 I was once asked as an economics graduate at the end of a successful interview just as I was leaving "Oh by the way you're not a commie are you?"
To my mind it was like asking are you a traitor because as a keen student of history I was appalled by the violent and brutal history of the Soviet Union .
Those who ignore history are condemned to relive it.
Especially useful idiots.
Years ago, at best folks would all get to wear shoes as long as they were black and size 9s!
That's an exaggeration but summed up the basic lack of choice -" One Size Fits All" creed.
Since then not all are equal.
An unelected all powerful Elite creates "For the Few, not the many" the latter regarded as plebs history has shown.
Whilst Hitler took on the monster his means were just as worse.
China only realised that Free Enterprise drives people forward like a dynamo.
The Liberty Equality Fraternity national motto of France and Left wingers is lip service to ideals which are purely theoretical and have been proven impossible to sustain in the real world.
They hold out the promise of "Heaven in a Godless World" like a mirage "if only".
They cling to the idea that one day technology will do all our work like robots and they will redistribute its wealth.
They never know how to bake the proverbial Economic Cake but are experts in deciding how to share it.
Just heard the good news – we are getting our sovereignty back. The government has asked the Queen to suspend parliament. (Thought she was just a figurehead)
Bye bye EU – hello independence. Brave new world indeed.
"These protestations are, of course, from those opposed to Brexit who have no qualms in using various parliamentary wheezes of their own such as taking control of the order paper or appointing caretaker prime ministers to further their so-called democratic objective of overturning the referendum result."
Alan Joyce below.
yes.. isn't it uplifting!
The signs seem promising, but we've been let down before. I am very surprised to hear the Queen agreed to prorogue, but I suspect refusing would have been an issue of constitutional crisis. I was expecting longer debate and some kind of fudge.
Looking at his letter, I suppose it all now depends on the next three days, and exactly what 'Withdrawal Agreement' Mr. Johnson intends to present for the vote on the 21st October.
No, not yet – we get our sovereignty back AFTER we leave the EU.
So very predictably, up go the cries of 'a constitutional outrage', 'profoundly undemocratic' and 'a dark day for democracy' following the announcement of the prorogation of parliament.
They don't like it up 'em Captain Mainwaring! They do not like it up 'em!
Way to go Boris !
Get us out of the EU then have a GE so we can drain the swamp of all those traitorous MP's who are now so loudly whinging about democracy.
I would like to be a fly on the wall when the likes of Dominic Grieve,
Oliver Left wing, Soubry, Wollaston, Allen, Lee, Boles, Yvette Cooper et al ask their local parties to stand as a candidate at the next election.
I read that Oliver Letwin has already said that he will not stand in the GE; I can't say that I'm surprised.
Is it a case of jumping before being pushed?
I don't know how is constituency association feels about him.
I see the pm is going to suspend Parliament and to right , all these Eu loving mps shouting about its war against the constitution, they are the ones who are going against the constitution by going against the will of the people in by trying every trick in the book to overturn the democratic vote of the 2016 referendum, when we are out of the dreaded Eu at the end of October then Mr Johnson should call a general election so we the mps bosses can clear the swap of all these traitors to democracy ,
Sameold
Great- and just heard the the EU council meeting scheduled for 17th 18th October is being put off until 07th 08th November to give Boris a good run at it. We should be well clear by then.
They're hopeless aren't they? They probably think that we need more time lol.
I've heard it said that their intransigence is motivated by the desire to deter other members from disembarking. All very well for the short term but won't be much of a deterrent in the near future when the UK will doing rather well.
Karl Marx was a parasite. It is hardly surprising that 'Marxism' was and is popular with parasites. The Bolsheviks were parasites and used the doctrine of Marxism to cloak their naked theft and dispossession of the Russian people. Needless to say after they had expropriate the estates of the Russian 'bourgeoisie', they occupied them themselves. They also murdered hundred of thousands of the top tier of Russian society from the Czar down in order to remove the possibility of a counter coup by the leaders of the Russian people. Marxism is the doctrine of theft and murder and in no way constitutes a political philosophy as understood by people of European ancestry.
BillM
Marxisim is all about taking full control of the people and their lives. The adage, "One should learn from past mistakes", does not apply to the modern day Marxist leaders for they always ignore them.
Such leaders crave one thing, Totalitarian Power and the best way of ensuring that is for the State to own everything, thus depriving the people of any form of independence.
Across the Channel, we can now spot the Brussels mafia displaying these alarming tendencies.
The proposed EU Army and the ultimate aim to create a United States of Europe, AKA the 'Empire of Europe', are proof enough of their future intentions.
At that time, each individual member Nation will be reduced to the status of a mere vassal State, with absolutely no independence and the Empire of Europe, with its Emperors ensconced in Brussels, at that time, will indeed have created the EUSSR.
Now who would really want to live in a regime like that?
"It was this system which helped lead to famines and agricultural disasters in communist countries trying something like it"
Some of the world's worst famines like the Bengal Famine of 1770 which caused the death of an estimated 10m people was caused by the policies of the British East India Company as was the one of 1943 which is again attributed to the policies of the British government.
Nothing to do with communism but pure old fashioned human greed and cruelty.
Tell us about the Cultural Revolution in China, MH. No……….thought not
MH….. The Bengal famine had it roots: ' The start of the famine has been attributed to a failed monsoon in 1769 that caused widespread drought and two consecutive failed rice crops' according to Wikipedia.
So which British company is to blame for Irish Potato Famine?
I've just re-read John Redwood's post and I didn't spot the part where he claimed that every single famine was due to communism. Can you highlight where he said that please?
To single out exceptions does nothing to support your suggestion. To try to suggest that because of events happened before the creation and results of Marxism, Marxism is not guilty now, is ridiculous . Indeed that same area suffers from the same problem even now. You conveniently forget that the famine of 1770 was initiated by the monsoon failure of 1769 in an era when there were no tractors, nor irrigation nor farming experts in abundance.
Please try to move onto an era that is in this century and based on a dream of a 20th century Communist who has never seen a good result from his principles. Neither have we has SJ points out!
Whenever the British State seems to take over universal organisation and provision we seem to be worse off than the rest of Europe. Take the National Insurance Pension, our government now calls this 'a benefit', the only benefit element is Pensions Credit that goes to people who haven't been paying full stamp – so people who don't provide for themselves and get an employer's contribution of near 14% over the lower earnings level get a better provision than the PAYE workers who did trust the National Insurance Scheme £125 to £157 (depending on years contributed and the amount your record shows) compared to £155 means-tested pension credit and delayed retirement age now.
From Weforum "At the other end of the scale, pensioners in the United Kingdom suffer from the worst deal of any OECD country, receiving just 29% of a working wage when they retire. To put this into perspective, the OECD average is 63% and the average for EU member states is 71%. Elsewhere, the pension rate in the United States is 49%, while in China, which is home to more than 1.4 billion people, the rate is 83%, OECD data shows."
I wonder what someone on our NLW and pays Employee's NI, Employer's NI, and Nest pays in comparison to what someone earning the same amount in Germany and France pay in Health, unemployment cover and pension?
Sue Doughty
The world was a very different place a hundred years ago when he wrote that. Coal was king, factories making old model goods proliferated. We do not need 1 tractor per household any more and coal stinks.
Reading that is like watching a shaky old black and white movie or times gone by.
But as Sir John himself told us he spent his early years in politics telling people about Marxism. It appears that after 40+ years he still thinks that Marxism is still prevalent, Corbyn as its representative is the new Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro or Maduro (as if the poor soul is anything such like!) and quotes as a proof USSR and Venezuela without realising that there have been over the years some socialism-influenced governments (in the Nordic countries, France or Germany) that did not succumb ending up as totalitarian dictatures. But obviously were he to admit such a fact that would not please his fan-club. People in this strange club have to be fed their daily portion of hate.
It's not hate and Marxusm us still prevalent.
If you visit Cuba or Venezuela and see the poverty and the lack of freedom then it becomes plain what a failed system socialism is.
Millions murdered in purges
Millions more starved to death.
Millions imprisoned without trial in forced labour camps.
Millions refused the right to leave their country.
Yet you are still an apologist for all this Hefner.
You only mention democratic mixed modern prosperous economies.
Totally different.
If you say so. Who am I to even think of discussing when you must have a first-hand personal knowledge of Cuba and Venezuela and obviously know, as Sir John does, that Labour is about to lock the UK in such a type of dictatorship.
So you need to have "first hand knowledge" of the dreadful conditions and lack of freedoms of people living in soocialist dictatorships to be allowed to criticise them.
Interesting logic.
And neither our kind host nor I has ever said "Labour is about to lock the UK in such a type of dictatorship"
You made that bit up.
In that case, could you explain (as you might have access to Sir John's brain) why he found so interesting to comment on this most extreme form of Marxism on 28 August 2019. Just by chance? As you say yourself, within Europe, we only have/had 'democratic mixed modern prosperous economies'. Explain to me the deep background logics, I am all ears/eyes.
You cannot even think that the good Sir John could be pulling you by the nose, can you?
You are being silly now Hefner.
And as usual you alter the argument to new ground having failed dismally with your original post.
Brilliant Edward2. So I am silly now, because you simply do not have anything meaningful to answer my original comment: What are the countries still following a full-blown Marxist model as described by Sir John. I give you North Korea. Otherwise which are all these other countries about to fall under a Marxist-type regime thus making Sir John's today's warning anything relevant? (Just to remind you: "How much of a threat are Marxist ideas again today.").
By the way, you did not need to quote the millions who suffered or died, some people might know a bit more than you do!
Oh are you back again hef?
You carry on talking in the wilderness.
Wilderness, indeed, but still one you feel compelled to check and comment on.
Wow! Looks like your government want's to crash out with no deal Wow! am glad I don't live in your country
I'm glad that you don't live in our Country also!
I'm glad you don't live in our country as well.
We already have too many people here.
thats most alarming. Can we persuade you?
"Crash out"? I think you're a bit behind the curve there. Nobody uses that sort of expression these days. We've moved on from that.
If we knew you, WE might be glad you don't live in our country too.
I am too.
"Why do advocates of Marxism as a political programme always claim states that followed their ideas were not true Marxist states, because they usually create poverty and tyranny combined."
Because they have to justify having another go (socialism: the failed experiment that never dies).
If they don't follow all 10 principles then they can say that they're not true Marxists. They're technically correct, but the real point is that no-one needs to care, what is now an established fact is that many versions of it have been tried and all have failed – not just a little bit, but total, utter and abject failure.
We can now see what each individual piece of their jigsaw does to a society, so there is nothing left for them to stand on, as long as those holding them to account ask the right questions and make the correct observations of history.
Many thanks for your pithy, robust and well-argued contribution on TWAO today, John. And yes, please do encourage your colleagues to hold firm and continue to reject any cosmetically altered WA.
Earlier in that programme Vernon Bogdanor pointed out that MPs have had three years to discuss these matters. They voted in 2017 by a large majority to leave the EU via Art. 50 of the Treaty, and have now rejected three times the only deal the EU offers, as well as rejecting a second referendum and all other proposals they debated – except the Brady Amendment, which so far the EU has rejected. So leaving on 31st October with no EU agreement is the only logical conclusion. He summed up: 'Parliament has rejected everything; that is what has caused this particular crisis. Frankly, parliament has been the problem. There has been no occasion when Parliament has rejected a treaty since 1864. This is normally a matter for government negotiation.'
And of course, this would have been no problem, had May not tossed away the Tory majority with her wimpish GE campaign in 2017.
Jolyon Maugham wants the Edinburgh High Court to direct the Westminster Parliament
Of course Vernon Bogdanor is right on this, if not on everything, and in particular as I have tried to point out in an earlier comment, as yet unpublished, Philip Hammond and other MPs had ample opportunity to oppose the triggering of Article 50 without the Act empowering Theresa May to do that including any safeguard against the UK leaving the EU without a deal:
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2019/08/28/what-is-marxism/#comment-1049277
I would also hark back to a comment I made here on October 9th 2016, referring to the debate MPs had on April 11th 2016 about the leaflet that the government was going to send to every household before the referendum:
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/10/09/the-cbi-and-the-eu/#comment-835784
From that comment:
"A number of MPs, including Kenneth Clarke, had a number of things to say about that leaflet, but not one of them thought to ask:
"When the leaflet says ""This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.", are people to take that literally, or would it be Parliament that decided how to respond to a vote to leave the EU?"
Or now we find that maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury will take it upon himself to decide whether or not we will leave the EU.
Jolyon Maugham wants the Edinburgh High Court to direct the government to revoke Art. 50. It will be interesting to see how far the EU legal practice of judicial interventionism in political matters has reached the Scottish courts.
Totally enjoyed your interview with Mr Boulton on Sky Today. You deftly managed to prevent him talking over you. Hopefully I will be able to track it down online and add to social media. Thank You.
Richard416
Even though Marx considered the capitalist class to be unnecessary, he recognised the need to create value by working and the advances in society due to collectivisation.
Richard416: "Even though Marx considered the capitalist class to be unnecessary, "
Odd then, considering how the Capitalist class was unnecessary to Marx, his Capitalist chum Engels bankrolled his extravagant lifestyle.
It was a great pleasure hearing you on LBC just now. You set the record straight, as you usually do, with clarity and simplicity. A pity about the thuggish interviewer.
David McDonagh
John Redwood is puzzled by how loosely Marxism is used and he seeks to dodge that by looking at the pamphlet The Communist Manifesto (1848). But that was not the complete creed but only its mere birth. John also asks why people like the creed, and why they think it has never been tried.
Sadly, John fails to dodge the loose citation of Marxism, despite referring to the 1848 text. In their later work, Marx and Engels developed the idea of communism, which ended money as a means of exchange and thus ended trade entirely, along with its basis of private property. It seeks to replace it with common property instead. This required a revolution, not merely a regime change. But it promised an end to all war, to mass unemployment and even to the disutility of labour, such that we would all enjoy our work, thus we would do our work without pay, in return for free access to the general stores.
Hayek held that Charles Babbage had the economic calculation argument [eca] suggesting that this would not work, economically but instead would cause a famine. In the 1920s, Hayek's teacher, Ludwig von Mises, certainly pushed the eca and he got no adequate answer. The best account of that debate is in From Marx To Mises (1992) D.R. Steele.
Lenin began as a Marxist, accepting full communism and overlooking the eca. In What Is To Done? (1903) he called for an elite to lead the way, but Marxism had held no elite would have been needed. In Imperialism (1913) he suggested nations were exploited rather than classes, as Marxism held, such that the workers in the UK gained from the British Empire but Marx held no such thing. Finally, Lenin in State and Revolution (1917) made a big difference between socialism and full communism, putting off the latter indefinitely. In articles, he even said that socialism was state capitalism only. He never explained how it aided the way to communism, that he had, in the cited 1917 book, effectively abandoned. But it did mean that 1917 was just a change of regime in Russia. So it is true that communism never was fully tried out.
Could we ever try it? The eca suggests we have no realistic chance, whatsoever, in even going anywhere near it.
Good post!I agree with your points re Lenin's works.People should also realise that the "change of regime" was in some respects also Russia stripping away the European façade it had developed over the previous couple of centuries and returning to the quasi Mongol Khanate it had been in the late middle ages(albeit under the cover of the very European concept of Marxism).And the nature of the relationship between Russia and the Mongols has always been-and remains- a hugely controversial issue.
John Probert
Johnson calls time on Parliament, to right
Time for Leadership and smart government
off topic.
Ruth Davidson may quit as leader of Scottish Conservatives. Principled or Fool?
She was going to resign soon anyway.
Nothing to do with today's events despite the media trying desperately to link it.
Someone remarked that socialists do not understand human nature. On the contrary we understand that selfishness, pursuit of individual wealth , exploitation of others , movement of industry and business to where ever in the world and at others cost is inherent in capitalism. The deliberate bringing down of industry to get monopolies, the corruption which cannot be controlled by the state all contribute to anarchy and negation of the Country as powerful,
Marx and Engels had some very pure ideas and that was suitable for enlightenment , however tempus fugit and we cannot possibly live in a world where cameos exist and hope to jump into this freezing of time. I am not a sole socialist ; I am conservative and agree we need capitalism in some form to keep employment vital and dynamic , however if the state loses too much control then we lose everything we have ever fought for.
Gareth Warren
Why is it selfish to want to keep the results of your lsbour, but okay to be allocated the results of someone else's?
That question was based on a quote by the excellent Thomas Sowell. Here I believe a marxist society eventually ruins the human spirit since it passes the responsibility for charity from the individual to the state.
Here I can see in cities such as Canterbury many results from charitable Victorians, but todays rich do not contribute in the same way. Here I would like to see government that does not give foreign aid or to charities so once again this is the preserve of the individual.
Good question, but it depends in which context one uses it and to what degree of selfishness is involved. Today there are many types of employment and many in the small private sector who employ staff on a minimum wage and become despotic imagining themselves as powerful yet forgetting that they are also responsible. I could go on .but sensing you are asking questions of this sort you will probably have thought about this yourself
I've never studied Marxism, but I have never liked the political stance and policies of those who claim to be Marxists. Centralised control, collectivism, dictatoship, confiscation of property, curtailment of freedom of expression etc etc are all anathema to me.
Mark W
I had a friendly discussion with a Corbyn supporting couple over the weekend. I put them both in their late 20s. I was asked to name some failed socialist countries other than N.Korea and Venezuela.
I find the best example is the single country single culture of East & West Germany. They replied that Hitler wasn't left wing. Without wishing to get into a discusion on the nationalisation and state control of the third reich, I asked what on earth East Germany and the horror of the internal German border had to do with Hitler.
They had absolutely no knowledge of the GDR and suggested I had invented or had believed fake news. This was a pleasent exchange. I introduced the Berlin Wall to the discussion. They had heard of this but still did not accept it was anything at all to do with this absurd suggestion I was making about Germany being divided in two between a capitalist and socialist system.
These were reasonable and intelligent people. In the end I had to persuade them to google East Germany as there was much to read and they may find Stasi interesting. How can it be that young people in this country have a blind side to a situation that is in easy grasp of living memory.
If you have Boris's ear I hope that in the coming election campaign a re-education of East Germany is promoted. There is no doubt that a Corbyn-East and Boris-West is a fair and accurate comparison
Just sayin...
Why do advocates of Marxism as a political programme always claim states that followed their ideas were not true Marxist states,
… because Marx didn't understand the human condition, collectivism and sharing only wors if you attach a higher ideal to it and that higher ideal is Jesus.