All faiths p 8
26.11.15 The debate about doctors pay: A Blue Revolutionary perspective on health
The British health service has too many problems for us to analyse them individually. However the elephant in the room which politicians of all sides are unable to discuss, we are able to reveal as we are not politicians we are ordinary people with an unusual perspective, one that moves away from the normal parameters of debate and hopefully generates purposeful if not challenging discussion.
The role of doctors, medics and therapists in any advanced industrial or post-industrial society is the same as the “witch doctor” in any primitive society; to get people back to their full productive capacity. The last thing a society needs are people who unnecessarily burden the economy and society. In less sophisticated societies where, shall we say, life is cheap people die quickly. Illness is a burden, personal and social. When illness requires “care” this “care” is essentially unproductive and so is done by the family, unless the person being cared for has an important role to play in society such as a monarch or overlord or if an ordinary person, they can be brought back to productive health quickly. As recently as the early 20th century the treatment of “Cowards” in the trenches of the first world war illustrates this point nicely. Officers “treated” infantry men executed.
We are not anthropologists and don’t know what implications the infirm have had on less advanced societies in the historical past. However old people and the infirm do present a challenge to any society’s productive capacity. We are beginning to experience this here in the west.
As we have progressed, society in the western world and elsewhere has been able to set aside some of its social and productive value to enable a humane treatment of some of the elderly and ill to occur. This expenditure requires of course a productive class who created the value so it could either by individual choice or government intervention be distributed to a widening group of unproductive people some of whom are old and some of whom have their productive capacity limited by illness.
The medic therefore has a relationship to society which is essentially to get rid of whatever is impeding the individual’s full health and their productive capacity be it within a tribe or an empire. The role of doctors, regardless of their pay, is to get people back to their full productive capacity. As doctors their pay should reflect their success at achieving this universal sociological objective. The elderly should have “banked” social and economic value individually or collectively within families or society and draw on it in their declining years.
This brings us back to our opening comments about the Health Service. The problem is that the health service in too many instances is no longer capable of getting people back to full health to fulfil their full productive capacity. It has become, as a result of decades of political weakness and intersecting social policies, a service which undermines individual personal and collective responsibility. It has become a service that keeps individuals alive long enough and unproductively enough to acquire life limiting ailments such as obesity, diabetes and depression to name just three.
Today we are not prepared to see people suffer or doctors under remunerated, but the reality is that the role of doctors is not to do what they are doing now. The health service was never intended to be brought to its knees or the country that finances it bankrupted by a population of unhealthy people who expect the tax payer, in the form of the government, to sustain them in a wholly unproductive and pointless cycle of illness and medical interventions.
The elderly now, who were young adults after the last world war, are probably the last generation of whom one could feel confident they as a generation created social and economic value greater than that which they consumed, and therefore deserve decent treatment in old age. But as for the rest of us, from the ‘Boomers’ onwards what social and economic value will we have to call upon in old age and more importantly where will it come from?
01.12.15 No to advertising Christianity. Yes, to the promotion of wholly commercial Christmas. Plus, allegations the US is corrupting Iranians with sex and vice. What is going on?
Is it any wonder that when many cultures in the so called second or third world look at the West, they experience a mixture of confusion and revulsion? Two stories illustrate the incomprehensibility of this secular westernism (1) as we call it.
Firstly, the Christian Churches, in a nominally Christian country; Britain, are banned from showing in cinemas an advert promoting the Lord’s Prayer. Yet at the same time, the commercial activity of selling Christmas as a period of debt and excessive consumption builds to its predictable crescendo on Christmas day. This must seem perverse even in non-Christian countries. The idea that in Iran it would not be possible to recite the Koran in public places is frankly ridiculous. The difference however would be that be that in the west in general, and in Britain in particular, it should be possible to hear the words of all faiths and none; if of course the “powers that be” were not so weak and unprincipled as to promote other faiths at the expense of our own.
It is precisely the secular wests squeamishness about its own religious heritage that has led to a decline in religious pluralism here and more significantly abroad. Let us be honest with ourselves, if the Islamists had not been allowed to think that theirs is the only faith delivering social value, and they were made aware that Christianity was capable of achieving the same, as well being capable of creating increasing amounts of economic value too, it would have challenged the view, held by many of the Muslim faithful in North Africa and the Middle East that Christianity in its secular manifestation is a perverse and perverted faith that sanctions vice and immorality.
The reason that this belief holds sway is that real moral , modest, simple Christian voices are silenced in the name of “not causing offence”, whilst to the majority of non- Christians the Christian faith is identified with commercial Xmas and all that is perverse about the west; its delinquency, a pitiful undereducated yet promiscuous welfare dependent class, its planed compromising greed. We can add to that list poor health, and the breakdown of the Christian family into a myriad of “arrangements” that put the needs of infantilised adults before the needs of the real infants and children.
The final point we wish to make, and our second story is that if we give up promoting the good that Christianity or Christian heritage can do, and, as claimed by the Iranians we take our perverse secular culture of pornography and vice and use it to try and entrap those of other cultures in an attempt to gain “influence” and game international relations, we are really stooping to a very low and frankly embarrassing level of poor moral behaviour.
On the one hand we downplay good Christianity and yet we promote vice abroad which becomes identified as bad Christianity. Christians don’t deserve to be silenced or be misunderstood like this, it encourages intolerance of them and arrogance from other faiths, but moreover Christianity becomes identified with secular westernism and that feeds rage, misunderstanding and even war.
The Blue Revolution is not intended to be a mass movement, it is simply a vehicle for encouraging a positive change in behaviour and for stimulating discussion and challenging orthodox “groupthink”. We would argue that if we had had less vice and more faith of all varieties Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc over the last sixty years, we may very well be having safe and culturally enriching holidays in North Africa and other troubled locations rather than embarking on yet another bombing campaign. We can start to put things right by allowing the Lord’s Prayer to be heard in British cinemas.
1 Secular westernism is the practice of free market economics within the context of a secular moral vacuum which gives rise to a type of wealth creation which undermines social value and, whilst creating income for those able to manipulate tastes, desires, and wants, creates little if any genuine economic value.
A faith to personalize, collectivize, politicize, radicalize or weaponize; what can we realistically expect from the faithful now?
The decision of Britain’s Labour leader to oppose bombing ISIS in Syria shows one extreme of the polarised position on action against ISIS; a sort of “let them get on with shooting us” attitude; naïve but well intentioned as is most left wing thinking on most subjects. On the right we have the bombing which is the “we will do what we can” approach, again well intentioned, and whilst not naïve unlikely to deliver the results envisaged. The argument that the end game is being ignored is valid but it is no basis for not bombing the ISIS criminals. It’s clear that in a place like the middle east end games are the stuff of fools; so much meddling and connivance, oil and power brokering to make any solution hard to both identify and deliver. Just look at the history of the place.
We have today a shooting incident in the USA; 14 people killed in what seems to be an ISIS “inspired” act of lone wolf terrorism. Just like the incidents in France and the potential of terror cells in Belgium. Britain will have people like this too, ready to act on impulse either when some random act by the west triggers enough anger to justify detonation and death, or simply because the terrorists feel like “todays the day”.
This is the basic problem the west must tackle, lone wolves inspired by, but not necessarily part of, the formal weaponry of radical Islam. We have been keen to talk about ISIS as criminals rather than warriors, but the recent incident in France prompts consideration of the wider Islamic community and from that thoughts about communities of “faith” in general.
Blue Revolution considers that the difficulty the western powers and therefore western people have, is that western culture is too easily characterised as “immoral” and the Muslim faith unlike Christianity is seen as an antidote to this immorality via its Sharia law. Islam is therefore seen as opposing the “problem” of the west. As people will know, Blue Revolution too views western culture as problematic, and proposes awareness of and therefore avoidance of our “Seven Deadly Sins” because there is still much in the west worthy of preservation and “problematic” doesn’t justify wholesale destruction.
What the west needs is reform, and self-regulation and the corrective of government intervention sanctioned by the people plus widespread moral renewal based on Contract, Choice and Consent between peoples and the people and their government.
So what point are we trying to make. Well faith in a modern society needs to be personalised. Those of us at Blue Revolution who have faith do not view our faith or any tenets of it, as something to be imposed on others but we do occasionally collectivise with like-minded believers. We believe that faith should be personalized. This is the reason the Christian Church of England is seen as irrelevant by many as it recognises faith is personal and not political.
British Christianity rightly lacks the power to convert based on grievance or conversion from anger. It is a big step from the personalization of faith to the political or politicization of faith. This involves people grouping together and “sharing” their grievances and their similar views, often attempting to gain converts in the name of grievance. In many ways this is the situation with certain Christians in the US in their opposition to planned parenting or their festering of race hatred. However, it also described a huge proportion of people of the Muslim faith. Adopting the dress and morals of what we have described as “dustbowl” Islam is a political act and it feeds a view of the west that sets people apart who live in the west. Finally, having become politicized it is a small step to being radicalized and fermenting hatred and another large step before one is prepared to kill or blowing oneself up or as we call it weaponse oneself. Weaponisation can occur in other faiths too, the murderers who kill those accessing planned parenting services have weaponised themselves; as of course have suicide bombers and the day tripper Jihadi on the London Underground.
All people in the west therefore needs to understand this dynamic, people of all faiths and none. It needs to be understood that if an individual, moves through “personalization” to “Politicization” of their faith it is a process that begins to harden views about others. The views of the Klu Klux Klan illustrate this point. Ordinary Muslims and southern US fundamentalist Christians should be encouraged to see their small acts of politicisation as acts which are not about personal belief but perhaps reinforce difference and implicitly encourage radicalization and for some the act of weaponisation. Jeremy Corbyn’s veto of bombing against ISIS but support for the IRA is another example of the move form personal to political to radical opinion, which for some we are sure inspired weaponisation.
To counter this process a simple and universal narrative is required and in addition an abandonment of the current “Political Correctness” agenda in respect of faith. Unless, faith is understood as a personal and possibly collective issue rather than a political movement problem will occur. The mistake of the last twenty years has been to overlook Islam’s political dimensions through the naivety of political correctness.
It would today, as a result of PC, be seen as unforgivable to ask of a veiled woman “why do you dress like that”…but it is a reasonable question in these radicalised times, and may indeed give rise to a personalised as opposed to politicised answer such as “it is how I practice modesty, or “my husband, or family tell me to”. Having said that many of the radicalised and Weaponised dress like westerners or in fatigues. So dress is rather complex on its own and gives nothing away.
The narrative we need is therefore based on the Blue Revolutionary concepts of Contract, Choice and Consent as the universal conditions of social and moral progress. These are the three key elements of a healthy society that whilst it may not be “free” or “democratic” in a western sense, provides a society that allows the 3C’s stands a good chance of evolving safely and productively in the future and creating a just society. Democracy is expensive so not all societies can afford it. However in the absence of democracy we need the 3C’s to make society just. The only thing such a society would need to avoid are the “Blue revolutionary” Seven Deadly Sins as these corrupt and corrode civility and good manners and inflict inequality and discrimination unjustifiably.
09.12.15 Donald Trump; a secular westerner sort of gets it….but only sort of!
A brief post on the back of the recent pronouncement by Donald Trump that some Muslims don’t like Americans. In that bit of his analysis we agree with him and would go further and say that some Muslims don’t like the west not Just the American bit of it.
The secular west is not a place where people of faith find comfort; as we at Blue Revolution continually point out. Trumps ludicrous reaction to recent events however just goes to show that the mass appeal he is able like all demagogues to articulate, which is essentially ordinary peoples fear and anxiety. Whilst good at picking up the right vibe his limited skills in analysis and inability to scope realistic solutions render him a buffoon on the world stage.
When there is an expectation that he goes beyond articulating fear he camps it up. For the great man Mr. Trump it would not be sufficient to merely identify a problem; he has to steam in with the Pro American saloon bar solution; thus, we had his ban on Muslims entering the US.
As Blue Revolution is a platform to stimulate debate sometime by being provocative, we are pleased that the question was asked “why do some Muslims hate the US”. It was also good to hear that political leaders were the ones tasked to find out why this was the case. Left there, a useful debate could have ensued about the combination of emotions ranging from embarrassment to hatred that is stirred up when people of faith encounter the kind of excessive consumption and trivial social relations that characterises the west and upon which western economies depend.
We don’t have to detail the litany of divorce, drink, drugs, sex, pornography and general social chaos, which is “denied” by governments who then plaster over the all too obvious social cracks with government money, in an attempt to obscure just how far from civilised the west has drifted.
There is a process of healing the world needs and it could start with a debate about these very complex social and economic issues. However in true buffoon mode Trump closed down the sensible debate and shifted things back to the silent status quo…..the middle ground, the don’t ask don’t tell approach to western problems. By managing to get every other Republican candidate to tell him that his opinions are invalid and ridiculous. ….which of course his conclusions are, the debate was quickly closed down. However, his question is very valid, and it takes people brighter than him to address it.
14.12.15 Corbyn’s New Socialists don’t know their Marx from their elbow!
The bourgeois socialists of Britain’s Corbynista Labour Party and its hangers-on are a group of people who share several left-wing obsessions in common but not necessarily all of them at once, and not necessarily at the same time.
Some show their credentials by supporting Russia, although Russia is behaving a little like the “spokes-country” for globally derided Christendom. A sort of non- secular westernism in the mould of 19th Century Protestantism. Other “left-wing” groups support 20th century secular Pan Arab causes, others Islamism in its various manifestations covering the whole range of Islamism types from the benign collectivised, to the highly dangerous weaponised Islamism of ISIS and their supporters.
One of the latest “Kids on the Block” is a bunch who wish to cleanse the Stalin brand; bringing some benign revisionism to the legacy of Uncle Joe. With the usual collection of Trots and Leninists the marketplace for the “Red Revolutionary” is looking a bit overcrowded. We thought we would offer a “Blue” perspective on our “Red” cousins, whilst also looking at some topical subjects. Regular readers will have noticed that we tend to do this; it helps to pin our brand identity on to an issue and over time to build up a patchwork of small insights that hopefully brings a coherence to the many popular agendas that perplex the world and we are about to allege the “left” lacks.
There can be no economic or social algorithm uniting the Left consisting as it does of groups who support an odd range of left-wing policies which often are at odds with both logic and common sense? They come from too many different economic, social and cultural backgrounds for there to be much coherence to their thinking.
Karl Marx spoke about his theories being scientific in character. Clearly not fully developed as science but totally undermined when his scientific socialism is placed in the hands of those of a so-called left-wing bent. We have endured these people for over a century and a half be they Russian revolutionaries, Chinese revolutionaries, Cambridge Grads circa 1940, supporters of Trotsky’s Left Opposition or anyone of a whole bunch of “revolutionaries” including we suppose good old “Woolfie Smith” of the “Tooting Popular Front”…..oh and Corbyn and crew.
So, if what unites the Left isn’t Marxism what unites public sector workers, single mums, students, Trades Unionists, autocrats and people with a dubious grasp of economics and international relations as well as misogynists, feminists, the transgendered and those who desire to change “our way of life” by force of arms.
We at A Blue Revolution have been thinking about our Red Revolutionary colleagues trying to distil the unifying theory which must be buried away somewhere in their complex and confusing matrix of political likes and dislikes; what motivates them and what do these disparate groups have in common, and we think we have the answer.
Let’s start with Capitalism; Marx understood Capitalism in the same way he understood Tribalism or Feudalism. These he saw as simply economic evolving phases that humanity went through, at different times and in different places. This is why we at Blue revolution try and avoid being too censorious about what other cultures get up to…….they may, like Somalia, be locked into a warring tribal culture that it is hard to break away from, or some others may choose to retain practices of the past like our old friend Saudi Arabia, stoning women to death for sorcery.
For Marx, all aspects of culture including its faith was a way of ensuring society could provide the value necessary to survive. So, hating Capitalism irrationally and not understanding its contribution to humanities evolution is no more logical than liking and promoting tribalism or dust bowl Islamism in the twenty first century. Culture is either socially and economically coherent with the way economic value is produced or it is not. If it is not, then why not!
Capitalism whilst promoting inequality, elitism and status was morally “coherent”.
Marx would have struggled to understand the modern manifestation of capitalism in the form of the consumer “free market” and he would have failed to grasp “Secular Westernism”. Secular Westernism is the consumer free market which is based on contract, choice and consent, but it is now devoid of any social morality. For example, welfare creating a class of adult dependents who like capitalists rely on the value created by others, but who live in idleness, ignorance and squalor. The underclass is far from a reserve army of labour as Marx would have understood them.
Thus, in a secular western world sex becomes commoditised, as do parental relationships, religion, marriage and a whole host of human relationships which should be social and psychological in nature but are in effect “commercial”. This is not “Capitalism” (although there is profit to be had) this is “Secular Westernism” and only the Bods at Blue revolution can see that it is hatred of “secular westernism” which unites the disparate collection of people who fall under the banner “left-wing”.
The danger is that by misunderstanding the benefits of the economic principles at the heart of any Marxist period of history, of which capitalism and the free market are but the latest manifestations, it is impossible to understand the confused moral character and motivations of the groups that form the allegiances that the left makes with anti-capitalist groups and how coherent the left is or perhaps is not, at maintaining a moral purpose based on freedom, choice and consent. they don’t know their Marx from their elbow.
17.12.15 Empire and the EU; “history repeats itself the first as tragedy then as farce”.
As everyone from Jeremy Corbyn down will be aware the quote above is from Karl Marx. However, it is often a struggle to identify modern situations where the quote has both relevance and accuracy. Our recent experience of the EU and our experience of empire offer an opportunity to re consider the quote within a context that is clearly Marxian in scale.
Britain’s imperialism was an attempt, and a relatively successful one, to expand the capacity of British culture to create and amass additional economic value. The process was very simple, the British exported their British Christian social values and economic competence and in doing so, enhanced their ability to amass economic value from the colonies by taking advantage of mass labour and cheap resources. It’s called imperialism.
To maximise the chances of achieving this goal the British exported, in addition to their religion and language, their evolving use of capital investment as a way of achieving increasing amounts of economic growth. The project lasted about 300 years. It ended when the elite of the people the British had conquered, grew in skill and confidence and using the “system” they had inherited from their colonial masters, felt able and empowered to grow their capitalism independently from the “parent” culture. From a Marxist perspective this was at least in part a success; in many places sweeping away tribalism and creating a proletariat. This is a point about Marxism that Modern “Socialists” don’t seem to get, as they enthusiastically rub shoulders with tribal type leaders and those who would replace one feudal dynasty with another.
Anyway back to the main point; the issue holding these newly independent ex colonies back was that whilst the “elite” may have had the skills and ability to operate a social and commercial bureaucracy, at the grass roots the populations were not fit for such purpose and the colonial model run by the British which protected and managed all sections of society, soon became a broken system which failed to deliver a well organised mass labour movement creating economic value via willing ‘exploitation’.
The whole thing quickly deteriorated into the tragedy of dictatorship. But at least they got some experience as a society based on the economic freedom of labour and a modicum of gender equality that went with it. Unlike the North Africans and Arabs who were simply manipulated then “pumped” for their oil and as a result retained a culture of tribalism or feudal monarchy with little to mitigate it modern awfulness.
The British imperial model’s ability to fully deliver an enduring proletariat failed because it was too easy to abuse rather than economically exploit disorganised labour. The workers levels of social and economic competence meant they were powerless to withstand the abuse visited upon them by the psychotic tribal money grubbers who replaced the colonial rulers, many of the worst offenders being educated in Europe to expect status and power but having no time for capitalisms nuanced legally coherent approach. Brute force and ignorance did just as well.
European colonial powers; particularly the British, should not be too hard on themselves; they left the seeds of capitalism and from that auspicious start, correctly managed the benefits of any additional economic value created would have led to a socially more egalitarian society such as has happened in Britain since the end of the Second World War; ultimately giving rise to the possibility of a mixed economy or socialism as we call it.
Unfortunately, the seeds of capitalism were killed by the combination of tribalism and feudalism which was latent in those who took over from the European colonials. The bit the British left behind, the civil service, whilst strangling nascent capitalism by draining the economy of economic value give what value there was to the nation’s leaders in the form of personal wealth, and thus provided the perfect feudal bureaucracy allowing the continuation of autocratic political control.
So perversely the bureaucrats who are supposed to be funded by the “real economy”(workers, and wealth creators) became the means by which the economy redistributed whatever economic value there is to the elite and poverty and starvation ensued. Hence the tragedy in the above quote.
In Marxian terms the Colonial powers took tribal societies, created nascent capitalist economies which, when they left, slipped into feudalism. However, the countries lucky enough (yes, we did say lucky enough) to have had the British colonial experience had some positive legacy to hold on to, and not just a world language and railways.
Some European empires were simply rape of a weak country by a stronger one. The British Empire was no like this, it was a commercial empire; trading from within, not perfect by any means but offering freedom from tribalism, and severe gender oppression for those who could become “prolatarianised”. Those who by being forced to sell their labour became acquainted with the concepts of Contract, Choice and Consent, gained the basic building blocks of a modern ‘just’ society that has the possibility to re-establish itself, and start to recognise the rights of workers to have a greater share of the economic value they have created. We at Blue Revolution call Contract, Choice and Consent the trinity of any “just society”; without these no society can progress beyond feudalism.
Now for the EU……or farce …in the above quote.
Firstly, we must identify a few obvious differences with the Colonial model. The most obvious one is that in the modern west we create very little that could be called “value”. We create wealth. So, the notion that a redistributive model is needed in the sense that workers are being “exploited” doesn’t really apply. (we won’t go into it here, but value and wealth are not the same thing). The wealth we have, is created by government borrowing and spending, the welfare arrangements propping up consumer spending, as well arbitrary asset inflation such as houses and stock leading to consumer borrowing. We also have at the upper end of the wealth continuum the “fat cats” of the bureaucracy, and those who get rich providing consumer goods and services.
Another key element of the Blue Revolution is the need for any western society to understand how little value it creates; both social and economic; and be clear about where that little bit of value ends up. In the modern EU the farce is that just like in post-colonial Africa where the bureaucracy propped up a form of feudalism which impeded social progress, so in the EU, the bureaucracy impedes the progress of society beyond a form of state sanctioned bureaucratic debt redistributive socialism.
The problem is that with so little social or economic value being created and a population who neither understands or cares about the need to create value, when the bubble of wealth next bursts, we will have an even more dependent, entitled and under motivated population, not empowered or even willing to evolve socially and economically to start the process of value creation all over again. Like the victims of African colonialism, they will fall prone to being oppressed by whoever is able to gain control of the very limited value still available in the economy. That person or group will have to be ruthless but given the likely chaos at the time, that will be easy; look at how easy ISIS have found it. We should not be complacent about this.
So at the risk or repeating ourselves, in chaotic situations like another perhaps terminal economic meltdown when as a culture we have become enfeebled having grown used to spending our wealth but not creating any value upon which it is based, the only coherent reaction is to revert to control via legitimate and fanatical management of the population. A coherent method could be found in fascism, some form of oppressive socialism…Ok fascism, or even Islamofascism. Look what happens when there is a terrorist incident, for example Paris, how quickly free societies revert to social control.
Paradoxically therefore the EU, a value guzzling socialist bureaucracy of the first order, which self-promotes an elite and keeps people placid and pliable by manufacturing consumer wealth, as it simultaneously destroys social value through welfare dependence, immigration etc is a risk to us all.
The whole EU process is undermining the likelihood of the core western values of contract, choice and consent surviving the next great economic catastrophe. As with Colonial Africa it won’t be the bureaucrats and technocrats that suffer…..it will be the rest of us. Don’t let the current farce turn into another tragedy. You have been warned!
If you don’t know what you really want in life, think about what you might end up with in death; if society can provide it by then of course!
Just think about it.
22.12.15 Ntokozo Qwabe and Cecil Rhodes; a partnership forged by Capitalism-regrettably for him!
Ntokozo Qwabe has expressed the view that the statue of the long dead patron of his Oxford scholarship should be removed as Cecil Rhodes was an imperialist and “looted Africa”. At A Blue Revolution we feel this is a topical story having appeared a day or two after our post on Tragedy and Farce. Ntokozo Qwabe’s view exemplifies the well-intentioned but misplaced conflation of political correctness, moral relativism and anti-imperialism which has dominated the debate about Empire for far too long.
Of course, Empire was “problematic” but not in the way imagined. When the likes of Rhodes and others took charge of parts of Africa, they saw the potential to spread Christianity and without being aware of it to proletarianize those who could be taken out of the tribe and put in workplace. With slavery abolished and tribalism in decline these proletarianized workers contracted as “free” labour, had choice about who they worked for and consented to remain with their employer having in theory at least the chance to leave if they wished to. Now cries will go up that this was exploitation on a grand scale. We agree it is exploitation but disagree it was wrong if the result is greater freedom for all eventually.
What Rhodes and others did was replace the poverty brutality and overt sexual discrimination of tribal life, it’s uncertainty and ritualistic practices and allowed modern values and agricultural techniques to generate greater economic value in Africa than the indigenous population could hope to have created by repeating ancient rituals and tribal superstitions. Like we always say, life is about value; how you create it, how much of it you have, who controls it, and what you do with it. Admittedly the tribal social values were pushed aside, the certainty of gender based social roles dispensed with as women were offered a degree of liberation. So, with more flexibility of labour, Empire was able to generate much greater value upon which there was greater wealth to distribute. There was more certainty, as science replaced superstition. The world of western science had started to replace world of tribal ritualism.
Now Ntokozo Qwabe makes a couple of points which whilst perhaps true, typify the limited and constrained nature of the debate. Firstly, the value taken, as he says the “resources and labour of my people” were acquired by the Empire builders but they, in exchange, liberated people from what by modern standards would be the horror of tribalism. Where this happened, it took women away from the savagery of FGM and assisted people in general to create better lives for themselves. Tribalism whether in Afghanistan or Africa is a way of life that no longer needs to exist; but where it does, lives are impoverished superstitious, obsessive and short and women’s lives often marred by institutional violence and discrimination.
The other point Ntokozo Qwabe makes is to claim that Rhodes saw Anglo Saxon culture as superior to African culture. Well if life is about creating value the Anglo- Saxon model was greatly superior to that practiced within tribal societies. The amount of value created by Capitalism allowed wealth for the empire builders (right or wrong) but also allowed some of it to better the lives of the indigenous Africans. To Claim this is racist is to miss the point. Rhodes and others were almost forced to conflate culture and race. It’s how it was for them; black people lived in ineffective tribal groups; westerners had the advantage of scientific methods to drive up value and create a way of life that reduced fear and uncertainty for all. And moreover, Marx would have agreed with Rhodes rather than Ntokozo Qwabe.
If we imagine that the ancient Egyptians had arrived in east Anglia in the UK in say 3000 BC, they would have taken the view that the tribal groups there were ineffective at providing high levels of value allowing a structured and secure way of life for all.
The Egyptians too may have made an association between skin colour and the British tribes shortcomings compared to themselves, as without doubt the Egyptians along with the Samarians were able to establish a form of feudalism whilst many cultures were still tribal. They may like the Romans much later have seen Britain as a country of savages.
Ntokozo Qwabe is benefitting from the economic system that has liberated him and could go further and liberate his continent from separatism, tribalism fear and war. It does not help the process of positive change when people criticize and attempt to destroy capitalism in Africa (and other places) and expect the result to be “socialism”. Socialism only comes through the birth canal of capitalism and through no other birth canal.
This move to socialism without passing through a capitalist phase never happens…. it can’t until people understand the concepts of contract, choice and consent (usually by being part of a capitalist economy at some point). In the absence of this understanding and full acceptance of Contract Choice and Consent plus a value generating economy society will only ever slide back to either tribalism or as we said earlier this week, with the help of an imperial civil service, feudalism can replace a failed or not yet fully established capitalism. The failure of ‘over ripe’ Capitalism in Europe in the 1920’s gave rise to a form of “technological feudalism” called fascism. Immature capitalism in Russia gave us Leninist-Stalinism.
In Africa and the Middle East today we have in too many places collapsing feudal societies and their relentless slide into tribalism. In Syria feudalism is sliding into tribalism and in Western inner cities, crime empires are, and always have mirrored feudalism but with turf wars over drugs and prostitution even inner-city gangs are adopting tribal values. The western elite don’t get this and the so-called revolutionaries like Russel Brand don’t seem to grasp it either. The moral practices of these nations or inner-city groups reflect the economic reality that they operate within be that tribal, feudal or free market.
Capitalism has failed its global mission but has left a slightly more permanent imprint in the west with its ‘market-based economy’ founded on contract choice and consent. Unfortunately, the failing market-based society (as opposed to market-based economy) undermines it and leads to corrosive “secular westernism”. The danger is that by criticising the bourgeois wealth and liberty creators of the nineteenth century Ntokozo Qwabe simply undermines the system that may still liberate the non-westernised world but with people like him the west is not out of the danger zone yet.
29.12.15 Acceptance of all faiths and none: How far is this determined by economics?
Reference has been made to the British being accepting of all faiths and none; a fact which we at Blue Revolution whole heartedly endorse. No country apart perhaps for the United States has done more to welcome and integrate those of other faiths than the British but there is another side to this good news story. This accommodation has more recently been made at the expense of our Christian heritage as much as because of it.
in the past British willingness to accommodate all faiths was largely due to Britain’s capacity to absorb labour due in large measure to its thriving capitalist economy; the ethic of which was to take people who had productive capacity and turn them into workers or as Marx would describe them the proletariat. The most ambitious of these used the opportunity of freedom underpinned by contract, choice and consent to carve themselves a niche within the system that began by employing them.
So far so good; Christianity in the form of Britain’s Protestantism driving a well-tuned economic machine which grew with enough vigour to allow immigrants to be absorbed painlessly into the economy and thence into society. The “morality” of the system was driven by the needs of the economy, so all had to yield something of their culture to the demands of the economy but as within the United States there was scope to practice the old cultures too in what was described as a social ‘melting pot’.
The UK’s post war settlement created a new “socialist” environment which saw the state owning and running industries and the empowerment of the working classes which resulted in a model for wealth redistribution with the “state” acting as the conduit for re allocation of wealth from business to the workers. The idea that we have rowed back from “socialism” is true only in the sense that today Britain has had to abandon re allocating capitalist wealth which was created by capitalism’s workers and now re distribute government debt to the taxpayers having created an army of state employees and a growing army of the welfare and health care dependent.
The upshot of this “progress” is that Christianity has been undermined by the state and this has fed what we call “secular westernism”; the pursuit of personal stimulation and self-advancement and the abandonment of personal and collective responsibility to the state. The Post war settlement only worked when the value upon which the wealth was created and distributed was created by an army of workers rather than by a handful of financial institutions.
Welfare once shorn of its legitimising Christian influence (to get individuals back to productive independence) became the progenitor of a new class of non-worker who simply settled down to collect benefits and live an aimless life of unemployment and poor health. This is where the relevance of our title comes in as into the ranks of what is colloquially known as the ‘underclass’, comes a whole class of immigrants who are also able to avoid the demands of contracted employment and the personal growth that goes with it. Contracted employment is an activity that forges a deep commitment to “freedom” based on Contract, Choice and Consent. Some settle into an angry aimlessness and a state subsidised obsession with faith as the end goal of life as is clearly spelt out in various Hadiths of the Muslim faith.
As we settle into secular western ambivalence Christianity has given up being little more than a cheerleader for the post war settlement in the UK. This coupled to the economic change that economic value produced by workers is now eclipsed by dependence on debt and welfare based consumption offers the newly arrived and more traditional faiths the opportunity to try and stop our apparently relentless decline into ‘ignorance of faith and moral depravity. In Belgium and France, we see much more worrying evidence of this process than we see in the UK. There is no point in welcoming people and then allowing them to settle down to generous welfare, subsidized to stay out of step with what freedom means to people of the west.
So, Britain has been a tolerant country and has a proud tradition of integrating migrants. The last thirty years may through welfare, the decline in the role of Christianity and the sheer number of migrants who have no heritage of freedom based on contract, choice and consent, undermine what can still, just about, be classed as Britain’s proud claim.
01.01.16 Reflections on 2015 from Blue Revolution.
It has been in too many ways a worrying year for tolerance and acceptance of all faiths and none. At the beginning of 2015 we were shocked by the murder of staff at Charlie Hebdo with too many random acts of terror littered in between, culminating in the Paris shootings. Western countries and we include the Russians in this, are now exposed to terror for trying to tackle the horror of ISIS. Yet whilst the west tries to tackle ISIS it continues to turn a blind eye to similar regimes that, whilst seemingly “civilised” by virtue to being trading nations are really autocratic bureaucracies and are as intolerant and brutal as the criminals of ISIS. By this we mean Saudi Arabia and Gulf States
To bring some coherence to this conflicted situation , the west needs to identify a coherent narrative which leads and inspires the world and makes a clear demarcation between the “values” of the west up to and including freedom and those of other cultures which whilst promoted by legitimate governments, operate to separate and discriminate on the basis of faith, sex, gender and sexuality.
The problem with creating a coherent western narrative is that the west has a whole load of problems which undermine any attempt to credibly achieve moral equivalence with more rule bound and brutal cultures.
The Sultan of Brunei’s restrictions on Muslims celebrating Christmas is probably as much about what Christmas has come to represent in the west as it is to simple religious chauvinism. The challenge for the west is to try and achieve a culture which promotes “freedom” based on the capitalist/Christian concepts of Contract, Choice and Consent, whilst reigning in the unintended consequences of lifestyles characterised by industrial scale illegitimate birth, divorce, adultery, pornography etc. We at Blue Revolution are not concerned with a person’s sexuality any more than we are with gender or sex (other than to promote equality and fair treatment for females) but we are concerned by social decay and the proliferation of unsustainable lifestyles of all types. We would argue that Darwinian theory rejects any social system that promotes self-interest at the expense of the family, the community and wider society.
The situation the west has to tackle we call “secular westernism”. It is the modern culture of pursuing self-interest based not on wealth from productive activity (creating social and economic value) but on “wealth” created through consumerism, government spending and welfare.
The free market is amoral and has been used by many who are immoral to create wealth for themselves at the expense of the rest of us our children and the planet. These immoral wealth creators undermine social values and bring about a slow social deterioration which requires government intervention to mitigate its effects; more welfare and healthcare! This process also undermines any attempt to be ecological as more housing and consumption is the outcome. In fact, as in the UK today economic “growth” is in too many ways a vicious cycle; welfare funded social decay masquerading as sound economic stewardship. It’s complex but think about it.
As far as we at Blue Revolution are concerned therefore the arguments of the so- called ‘left elite’ are incoherent because the adherents of “welfarism” fail to recognise the full corrosive nature of the social decay created in their name. They also fail to understand the life limiting effects of welfare on the individuals trapped on welfare. Additionally, the left also fetishizes the need for more state intervention to correct the declining social reality welfare creates. Hence the growing epidemic in mental health problems. We believe in welfare but not if it dulls resilience and self-reliance and promotes the social annihilation of the family.
So just as in a Dyson vacuum cleaner there is more than one vortex’s operating simultaneously; the “growth through social decay” vortex and the necessary “growth of “good” government” to sort out the mess. Neither is sustainable and neither are the solution to the west’s problems. Accepting this is the challenge for the west in 2016 and beyond. The people, not the government need to act and to understand the nature of the wests problems and then by becoming “Blue Revolutionaries” do something on a personal level to contribute to the wests economic and social recovery.
People should use their vote to support governments who want to row back a little from the march towards the kind of elite big state socialism of the last seventy years. Big state socialism is elitist and unfair the EU arguably being by far the greatest exemplar. Another example this time of big state elitism is the farce of the Paris agreement where the “public” wanted to make no changes to their lifestyle so left it to governments to negotiate what these would be but governments have no public legitimacy to do this so all agreed to collectively hand wring on behalf of their populations.
In respect of other cultures with perhaps extreme Islam (be it in Saudi Arabia, or Iran) at the most intractable end, they need to accept that the west struggles to understand the causes of its problems and does not deliberately try to promote unsustainable lifestyles that intelligent people of all faiths and none would find it difficult to encourage such as casual sex, and intergenerational welfare dependence.
The west just lacks understanding and a coherent response to the problems its “market-based economy” has created. The non-western countries need to work with the west to stop the terrorism that is intended to destroy the west and perhaps show some understanding that with the wests freedom comes the contract, choice and consent and thus allows individuals to fail and slide into immorality.
Finally, the review of 2015 suggests to us that if we could promote, as the basis of our narrative to the world, Contract, Choice and Consent then the west may be able to come to peaceful and constructive accommodation with non-western regimes. These regimes may wish to recognise that with our cultural components in place the future for their citizens are less likely to be compromised by the growing demand for freedom leading to repression and civil war.
Hopefully this may happen without the decline into social problems which has characterised the wests early adoption of freedom as a way of managing society.
Happy new year.
04.01.16 Compare Saudi Arabia and Iran to observe the different economic factors which should be used to understand ISIS
Claims that ISIS are beaten or are on the back foot and are, losing territory are largely irrelevant to the overall life span of this disagreeable group of thugs.
It is unclear how ISIS are funded or indeed how they are trying to manage the complex business of winning hearts and minds, so they achieve a level of legitimacy required of any state. In the absence of wide scale legitimacy ISIS are not a state they are a group of people who have taken over parts of a state and are now systematically destroying it by pursuing their seventh century dust bowl interpretation of Islam through terror and their brand of religiously sanctioned brutality. They will, as a result of their economic illiteracy, fail hence the reason they threaten to take their terror abroad. We at Blue Revolution are economic determinists; If there is no coherent economy for ISIS there is no state and no coherent society.
Saudi Arabia is an interesting country to compare with ISIS; Saudi Arabia is a wholly functioning state with a standard array of State attributes for example Defence, Education, Health and Justice Systems. However Saudi Arabia is a country that holds that harsh punishments including death by public beheading are a legitimate way of dealing with the consequences of an individual’s personal weakness, as well as for real crime such as murder.
The whole structure of government and the Saudi nation is paid for by oil that is simply pumped out of the ground and sold to an oil guzzling west. This is an under considered fact about Saudi Arabia; it is nothing without oil. ISIS are nothing full stop. For too many other North African nations “Tourism” is almost a proxy for oil and just as precarious in the long term too. The whole region is therefore at risk of long term economic and societal failure. Particularly if Islam returns to more puritanical regimes elsewhere in the Muslim world.
The message therefore is that unless one has an economic vision and one which is coherent with the needs of the global labour and technology markets (competing with nations like China and India Europe and the US) one cannot optimistically call ones state a “State” with a long term future. If one relies on just one natural commodity one is in a precarious state. The vulnerability of Saudi Arabia once the oil runs out, can’t be lost on the Saudi princes and may explain the regional hostility to Saudi Arabian monarchy and some recent executions.
Iran is in many ways no less intractable on punishment under Sharia law than is Saudi Arabia. The execution of gay men is commonplace. However, they are a country more embedded within the global family of nations from the perspective of aspiration, technology, and a view that their economy needs talent and education to achieve its economic objectives. With this foundation, the way Iran does business makes it more compatible with the west. This may seem odd as the west’s relationship with Saudi is recognised as that of an ally, whereas until recently Iran was classed as an enemy. Taken over a span of many decades however the consequences of picking attractive but incompatible allies (particularly if they have oil) resembles that of choosing attractive incompatible partners; the relationship will be profitable for as long as you can pretend you have something in common.
07.01.16 The Labour Party: A party for women. Oh yeah!
We at Blue Revolution are going to get unusually controversial because we going to explore the claim made by two Labour party activists, one an MP that the Labour Party is the party for women. No party in our opinion can really claim to be the party for women or indeed a party for ordinary men. The country is too diverse to enable this claim to make any sense. Women like men have a variety of aspirations and expectations that may be positively influenced by the tax and benefits system or they may not. Similarly, the nature of the economy dictates terms too, as does the culture based upon it. All this is positively received or frustratingly runs counter to the expectations of individuals or indeed their best interests
What these Labour party spokes women said was “promoting the interests of women” was little more than the self-defeating consequences of social engineering, that started out in earnest under Blair’s “New Labour”.
The modern, state regulated mixed economic system, present in most advanced western economies seems to us to financially advantage a certain type of middle class individual who benefits from either a well remunerated government job, or a well paid jobs in industries that rely on that Wizard of Oz commodity “consumer confidence”; banking for example. So, if we park these people to one side, we can look at the rest of society and look at how our “social Engineered” society has evolved since let’s say the 1990’s and how it has affected people, but in particular, women.
For far too many house price inflation and debt is a substitute for real value-based earnings. House price inflation coupled to a weakening of the Christian marital contract of “for richer or poorer” has resulted in many couples breaking up. Just when the “richer or poorer” clause should have come into its own too many couples discover they have a nice little nest egg within which they sit uncomfortably together, stressed out with children and no longer fired up with our modern interpretation of love; namely lust, so they leverage and part.
Marriages break down, children are separated from parents usually men, and women (and men) go off in search of “love”. The escalating rate of sexual abuse and domestic violence reflects this “sociological” change. As does the unrelenting increase in the number of “single mums”; too many of whom are on benefits and have “boyfriends” and can’t help bringing up children with an array of emotional problems or exposure to sexual abuse but may also be committing various types of benefit fraud.
We must not forget though that this “sociological phenomenon” has been socially engineered, because it drives consumerism, and drives the housing market and makes people feel “good about themselves”; or it is assumed it does it.
We don’t have numbers but in the UK the volume of “reconstituted families” and single parent families is something the “system” does not record. It would be too morally embarrassing to admit the numbers and that outside of the “state employment sector” the next biggest driver of economic consumer confidence is probably welfare, with its blend of “in” and “out” of work benefits delivered to a hotchpotch of fluid family units.
Now the balance sheet! By treating women as though they as a vulnerable sex as much prone to ‘unwanted’ pregnancy as their Victorian forbears we undermine their moral capacity and we do it with welfare. Unlike the Victorian who had to show moral restraint to avoid unwanted pregnancy, the modern female (and male) must show little if any restraint. This diminishes for the women the vast array of non- biological sex-based opportunities that may be available for her. For the modern woman sex is casual and sadly a social expectation. For those of faith or of a Darwinian persuasion, this leads to casual procreation; not the pursuit of social improvement but a race into the evolutionary grave yard.
Into this environment (and I’m not talking about the state employed or well remunerated private school educated middle classes) children are exposed to uncertainty and loss of dads, grandparents, homes, friends etc. It creates a range of personality problems for young people that lead to promiscuity or violence and require more of the soothing balm of state intervention, health services and welfare to mitigate its harsher side effects. The demand for better mental health provision is all the evidence we need that we are getting something wrong.
It is the girls who lose out the most in the “socially engineered” but inhumane system. Boys expecting, nay demanding sex and not just pleasurable sex love as Karl Marx called it. Boys who are insecure, unreliable and porn exposed are by and large an unappealing catch, so relationships last just long enough to pop out the next clutch of welfare babies.
This is a society without its Christian anchor points, a society that promotes the very characteristics that Faith and civilisation have been trying to overcome since the beginning of time; namely fear, insecurity and uncertainty. Incidentally Sharia law is seen by a growing number of men and women as the antidote to what we have described above. Sharia law would solve the problem and its advocates know this, but at what cost freedom and what cost to women?
Finally, with the breakdown of the family and the decline of choice for too many women to achieve more than their “traditional” role as mothers, but without the traditional security of a loving family to help them, the final humiliation for women comes in old age. With no independent wealth derived from a life-time of work and saving, and with a malfunctioning or estranged family, they slide into old age, too often alone, but “managed” by the state, the State acting, as in their early life, as a proxy the family.
This is an unintended nightmare and parody of the post war settlement, and its then proud boast; the state offering support “from cradle to grave”.
So, when the Labour Party wants to claim to be the party of women we ask; how so?
09.01.16 The EU reaping the whirlwind of naive policy on immigration.
The immigration situation in Europe is unavoidable. The Arab States and North Africa have been kept in a state of perpetual adolescence by the British, United States and European elite as to their advanced economies took advantage of these politically under-developed Nations and could make a living simply providing oil or cheap holidays in the sun. Now due to economic under development and Western foreign and economic policy wars people are forced to migrate from nations on the slide back to tribalism.
The complex nature of Capitalism with its free but unequal relationships and core of Protestant Christian theology (Which we at Blue Revolution maintain gave rise to the economic trinity of Contract, Choice and Consent) drove a period of productive growth and economic expansion that continues to provide enormous wealth for those fortunate enough to be on the right side of the debt based twenty first century economic equation. Unfortunately, as peddlers of essentially one product Arab and North Africans are on the wrong side of this equation.
What European as opposed to British “Capitalism” has failed to do is leave a capitalist legacy south of the Mediterranean Sea. Unlike the European Empires the British left proto “Capitalism” a legacy which whilst not perfect and exposed too often to the corruption of dictators has seen many African nations withstand the inevitable slide back into tribalism. Tribalism as we have said before is a form of social order that is rule based and discriminates against others and women.
However we see tribalism returning all over the world in the same way we observe authoritarianism consolidating or even re-emerging or in the case of Iraq being destroyed by a naïve US/UK Foreign policy that believed it could impose “democracy” on a country that had a heritage of submission both to God and to the secular state.
When you destroy authoritarianism as in Iraq you get tribalism and the desire to fight until a city resembles one of those pop-up car parks you see in modern city centres before the developers move in do the final pulverising. To think the UK and US considered going after Assad and even flirted with the idea of bombing Iran is absolutely frightening. These policies would have ushered in Armageddon, not with nuclear weapons but with a slow relentless guerrilla war, destruction of the west from within.
So, what do we at Blue Revolution consider to be the answer to what is clearly the worrying corrosion of advanced western values by gangs of uninvited guests fleeing countries destroyed by a combination of tribalism and western hubris?
Firstly we need to understand that western culture is not about “democracy” per se. “Democracy” and “Freedom” are by products of Contract, Choice and Consent and the only way you get these dispensed on a mass scale is through the development of a capitalist economy…Sorry all you lefties but go and read your Marx again…….. and properly this time! So, we need to get our “guests” into the habit of working for their wages and to stop the subsidisation of idleness through welfare. Welfare for westerners is bad enough (see previous posts) but for people whose politics is theological and who’s theology goes little further than worshipping God, welfare turns them quickly towards thoughts of the creation of a European Caliphate.
We misunderstand this essential point at our peril, just look at Copenhagen and other European cities and tell us that we are really looking after the interests of western women by allowing men to systematically abuse them driving them through fear back into the home and off the streets or only to venture out accompanied or with a male relative; sound familiar?
Secondly, we need to get the technocrats who run Europe to understand that money invested in jobs for migrants now they are here, is money well spent. The devil makes work for idle hands. We also need to recognise that the likelihood of any Arab or North African nation accepting “Freedom” based on Contract, Choice and Consent is unlikely within at least three lifetimes and containing the tribal impulse may need some form of slowly evolving feudal structure until “enlightenment” descends.
The EU could do this in North Africa and leave EU countries alone to get on with running themselves. We don’t need the EU, but North Africa does. Spending the EU levy to keep people in their own country and working to build their own “free” society would be money well spent.
The EU should be working with Assad and others and developing the Capitalist economy in the North African region as well as helping Africa to become the world’s breadbasket by removing barriers to trade. Not doing these things undermines Europe morally as well as economically and socially. The left will object but again go back to Marx and read him properly this time.
Finally, we must accept we have been wrong over the last 80 years in respect of our policy towards the countries now devolving into chaos. And yet we don’t change tack. We have the Saudi’s, another “infantilised” nation with their oil wealth. Let us not remain silent about them, they may be our neighbour now, but they are not our neighbour out of choice more necessity. Who else can buy their oil and sell them state of the art weaponry?
Let us also look at ourselves. “Secular Westernism” is a grotesque development of free market capitalism that has evolved because the west has lost its appetite for Christian moral behaviour. If we want to have morality springing from within each of us, rather that imposed from outside, we need to get a grip on the tendency of the market to commodify everything including sex and human relationships. Perhaps this is the biggest challenge for the west and will determine whether we succeed, or we fail to move the world towards a culture recognised globally as “good” as opposed to various types of bad.
16.01.16 David Cameron suggests lessons in family life and the EU lessons in how to treat women AIMED AT MIGRANT MEN. Both are missing the point.
David Cameron believes that the lamentable state of family life for many children in the UK can be addressed by “lessons” in how to be a family.
The EU equally baffled by what to do about the situation they now find themselves in with migrants roaming the street in search of single women who according their simple Islamic culture are immodest and are therefore offering themselves for sex by their “immodesty”, offer a similar solution.
Neither really hit the point; both are a bureaucratic response that skims the psychological surface of the problem. Here at a Blue Revolution with our collection of divorces, failed relationships and reconstituted families have an alternative analysis but as with all revolutions the solution is neither easy or without pain.
The issue of attitudes towards family life and the way migrants treat women is fundamental to the values of the individual. It is a bit like the attitude towards debt. You know how much forbearance you have towards acquiring debt; some totally opposed to it, others rack it up and then some more. Having ‘lessons in debt’ would achieve little unless there was some “pain” that resulted from the levels of debt acquired; mere lessons would quickly be forgotten when outside of the classroom and the gains and losses could be rationalised and the conclusion reached that justified ones attitude.
Shifting social attitudes is always problematic and over thousands of years attitudes are shaped by the interplay of economic, religious and social factors. In simple societies attitude shifts are often met with a violent response until over time the economic logic of the change is apparent. And so, it is with “family life” and “attitudes towards women”. We have two different problems here, but we have one single solution. The solution is “exposure to moral hazard”.
This is how we at abluerelovution.com we believe it should work. Firstly, the financing of family life is returned to the employment market as opposed to being state subsidized irrespective of the “competence” of the parents. An economically “competent” couple who manage their finances competently (whatever that looks like as long as it is legal) can offer competent parenting. The current arrangement where “welfare” babies are born to the unemployable and often criminal are a social aberration that will undermine the strength and vitality of our economy and therefore our future.
We bang on about CONTRACT, CHOCE and CONSENT as the building blocks of a free democratic society and for this to be preserved, democracy needs to have new generations of those who have an embedded sense of Contract, Choice and Consent. This is where bureaucratic Socialism goes blindingly wrong, by compromising the three “C’s” the state ultimately undermines democracy.
So if your “welfare” baby is born the parents should be given activity to do; environmental work for example, that enables them to pay for the baby, a single parent will need to find a job to support themselves and in the absence of this the baby will be put up for “economic” adoption. Economic adopters are People who adopt but don’t cut the “birth parent” out the equation and get some subsidy from the “birth parent” and state. Keeping these “birth” people on board is important as they are the sad counterpart to the concept of full moral responsibility. Over time the attitude towards parenting will shift. Parenting will be it should be (and is by some) a very responsible socially and economically important job rather than is increasingly the case the product of a morally ambiguous “money shot” from two people who have entitlement and adolescence as their defining characteristic.
Some will argue that this approach undermines women’s rights, but we say undermining a woman’s economic role by subsidising her biological role is just as undermining and skews the concept of choice.
Finally, our migrants. Work, Work and more Work. No one should simply arrive uninvited and sit around watching TV and working themselves into an adolescent froth about the absence of tribal or authoritarian “morality”. Give them all jobs, even made up jobs doing environmental work. Also give them a warm safe place in a hostel and tell them to work (i.e. paid private sector employment) their way out of it or go home, when home is safe enough for them to go. To Mr Cameron and colleagues in the EU economics we say this the answer to your issues, economics on a very personal level.
19.01.16 The Lefts hatred of capitalism is as irrational as the fetishizing of socialism. Both are unsafe in this slippery world.
Russell Brand once spoke on the subject of capitalism and identified some issues….. let us try and capture his drift:
” People are becoming hostile towards a western socio political and economic hegemony wot systematically undermines freedom and alienates the masses, creatin anger and alienation wot reflects the malfunctioning of the bankrupt prevailing military industrial system through the disillusioned antipathy of the massed ranks of workers who’s consciences must be raised by a vanguard of revolutionary leaders who highlight the exploitation of the masses and expose the criminal activities of the prevailing elite. Wot needs to change is that the mass energy of the exploited should be turned to thoughts of overthrowing this criminally obtuse system of elite self preservation……..
Well Ok he might not have said this exactly but it is the sort of pretentious half- baked Marxian waffle he would have said….or, so we at A Blue Revolution think anyway. But whilst Brand had a point, his analysis was woefully short of the mark and his solutions non-existent. But as we say….he had a point, many people have a sense that Capitalism or rather its modern manifestation “the free market” is going a little haywire and with that other things suffer too like democracy, but what exactly is the problem and is the solution more socialism?
Historically the role of Capitalism has been to free people from the bondage of servitude within feudal structures in the same way that the servitude within feudalism freed people from the horror and starvation and uncertainty of tribalism. Capitalism without doubt has its problems but the biggest one is that its early manifestations were essentially elitist in character but not in the most obvious way.
The elite feudal overlord exploited his tied workers who were bonded and essentially the property of the overlord and his land. In exchange for this arrangement the tied worker delivered his labour unwaged to those who were above him in rank and title.
Capitalism achieved the task of freeing the tied worker; creating the waged “employee” who whilst free to sell his labour was also “free” to starve. The illusion created was that at this level capitalism was no different from “feudalism”. But of course, in the case of the worker it was. The worker might have been horrified by things like industrialising agriculture and the mind-numbing monotony of the factory system but unlike the feudal worker he could travel freely, move up the social rankings and achieve wealth by dint of his own brain power and effort. Feudalism had few opportunities like this. There were some notable exceptions to this general rule; Henry VIII’s treasurer Cromwell was low born…but Capitalism opened the flood gates to this process of personal improvement. It took centuries though.
Where capitalism left a mark, usually where the British empire left its imprint outside Europe, people became workers, not slaves or feudal subjects. Capitalism is what Capitalism does. So, in terms of this process alone people became “free”. Capitalism liberated people and has liberated women, admittedly too slowly but it is the capitalist system driving social change that has brought about liberation, it is sadly not the other way around. The proto fascism of female cultural subjugation was in large measure brought under control by capitalism according “worker” status to women, slowly making the woman a “factor of production” as opposed to subordinated wife or home bound mother. This process of liberating women from biologically determined roles has now been stalled by post war “socialism” and the welfare trap within the western free market system. More of this later.
Capitalism can only be capitalism when certain pre cursors are present and these emerged about three hundred years ago. These are what we at a Blue Revolution call the three C’s, the essential precursors to Capitalism; Contract, Choice and Consent. It was with these three factors in place that Capitalism began to shift ordinary people away from servitude towards, we admit, a rather miserable freedom. But freedom it was and freedom it remains.
However, the main obstacle to workers liberation and one of the two the main and significant “feudal” throw backs within the capitalist system was that the boss simply replaced the feudal overlord. Workers might be free, but they were still exploited. They got some of what they produced back in the form of wages but the largest chunk of value they created went to the capitalist who acquired and accumulated this value giving rise to the nineteenth century socialists claim that “all property is theft”. The other throwback to feudalism is that the whole system was hierarchical in character. Ranks of managers below the boss, reflected the rank structures of feudalism and allotting a place for all within a class system.
But Capitalism had to happen, without it, people would not have been liberated. without it, Britain’s Jeremy Corbyn would not be able to try to arouse the ire of the free “workers”. He would have been slain for treason. Had it not been for Capitalism, large parts of the world would be excluded from an economic family that can trade on equal terms with trust borne of the freedom allowed by Contract, Choice and Consent. So, when we hear the left criticizing capitalism and demanding its overthrow, we ask “what bits of it do you want to overthrow?” because some of it should be kept in the interests of freedom and progress. Chucking out contract, choice and consent to deal with ‘unfairness’ using an elite bourgeois parliament won’t do it at all. It will make matters worse.
Therefore, for the traditional left-wing we believe this question is a little problematic as the “quote” from comrade Brand we hope illustrates. You simply can’t overthrow an old system without dragging bits of it into your new system. The existence of hierarchy being the bit of the old system dragged into Capitalism with the ever- present threat of its rebirth at any given moment of crisis.
The return to authoritarianism in Europe in the 1930’s arose from the collapse of capitalism in countries which were still feudal in character. The slide back into tribalism in the modern middle east due to the collapse of their authoritarian systems; no culture of Contract, Choice and Consent to spur an emerging capitalism so as to create the liberation and freedom the west enjoys (and as our 7 deadly sins suggest we abuse).
So, there is a defence of capitalism! A system that gave freedom but with a financial cost to the worker. What of the lefts fetishizing of Socialism and how dangerous is this?
Socialism would not and could not have happened without the Capitalist system; a point all too often lost by the traditional left wing. The economic model that evolves into socialism has to be based on two of that capitalist systems key features; one is the creation of value on the kind of industrial scale that can only be delivered by capitalism, and secondly to avoid the slide into fascism there must be a genuine observance of Contract, Choice and Consent.
All too often we hear the left-wing criticising capitalism whilst offering an alternative which lacks enough of the four components of capitalism namely worker created social and economic value, contract choice and consent to make the new socialist offering both viable financially and fair. The left talks about “ending austerity” without recognising that if your economy lacks the productive capacity to create value, you have nothing of value to re distribute. The usual response is that the government can borrow or nationalise the banks and just about everything else. State borrowing however is unfair as it places the greatest burden for repayment onto the poorest and drives the cost of borrowing up too; hardly Robin Hood. Nationalisation creates a perverse parallel universe in which the benign State becomes the malign capitalist owner of the means of production. Along with other nationalised industries the whole economy slowly becomes a calcified job creation scheme producing nothing that people want other than unproductive government jobs. Socialism is basically a wealth redistributive arrangement. It took a while but in Europe we have learnt that governments do not make good capitalists. In the past these government capitalists created too little economic value. Look at Russia in the 1950s to 1990s the economy raced to the bottom from its high point in the 1930s. Far from “all property being theft” “all property becomes debt”……exactly as it is now and we in the UK are could not cope with more, no really we could not.
Once the economy is under the control of the government there is a massive reduction is the amount of Choice, and Consent there is around and indeed the whole “free” basis upon which the capitalist system operates becomes eroded. Rights diminish and the system run by technocrats or so-called experts rather than the people, guide the social and moral agenda. Therefore, lovers of totalitarian ideas from fascists to Jihadists love socialism and these groups hatred of capitalism is why socialists love them back.
Now arguably when the left talk about economic reform or identify problems with the current economic model they may have moved away from full on nationalisation. But within socialism the belief that governments know best prevails and limits progress. This desire to put government in control is the slippery path from capitalism to socialism as bureaucratic authoritarianism; top down, lacking progress, and prone to collusion, corruption and coercion. The perfect cocktail to undermine freedom anyone could possibly come up with.
In this slippery world of Sepp Blatters’ and corrupt regimes, to lose sight of Contract, Choice and Consent and replace them with more incompetent government and a bankrupt redistributive economic model is folly indeed.
And finally the EU is precisely the kind of “government” that is unproductive and bureaucratic, run by technocrats and therefore should be seen for what it is a fanciful 20th century form of bureaucratic authoritarianism. Not progressive at all really……not now.
So Russell Brand had a point and if you are still with us, you will recognise that the answer to his problem is not to overthrow all that is capitalism or to replace it with all that is socialism. The answer is a Blue Collar Blue revolution.
21.01.16 The life of economic value. Where does it end up?
In the west some of us delight in the world of the celebrity; we love the antics of Paris this or Justin that and the world of the acting and celebrity profession somehow adds glamour and gravitas to the view that the world is so unfair and poor people need glittery advocates to promote their interests; at no actual cost to the “profession” itself of course. The acting profession and the Z listers who clutter up the day time TV slots and magazine racks have become good at skimming off a hefty chunk of what little economic value the western world creates. The mechanism involves magazines, films and television as well as the new trend for you You Tube celebs offering advice on all things trivial.
There is clearly nothing wrong with the entertainment profession; the western world has enjoyed poetry, song and theatre for centuries, and now enjoys Film, TV and Radio. However when one considers that the business of creating value is typically down to those who actually toil in fields and factories with the bankers (services nor speculation) and some of the high export earning celebs (Beatles etc) coming up the rear with foreign earnings (Jeremy Clarkson!) it is clear the vast majority of those celebs who make wealth out of the economic system we call the “free market” are simply acquiring the spoils of other peoples debt, welfare and welfare supported earnings, for little of any discernable value to the individuals concerned. The question is this; is this justified?
Well whether it is justified depends on your vantage point in respect of wealth and how it is created and then acquired. If as many do, one takes the view that the way wealth is created and is acquired does not matter “one is relaxed about wealth” as one new labour stalwart commented, then the fact that the poorest members of the community are wasting money on frivolous rubbish will be of little concern as long as someone is getting wealthy. If however one takes the view that the stewardship of what ever income or wealth one has (whether it is from earnings or welfare) is very important if one is, as one should be, serious about providing for ones family, one should be saddened about the celebrity culture in the west and the waste that goes with it.
So if the likes of Paris that and Justin this start to wonder about the “global hegemony” they needs to look no further than their excessive earnings, acquired largely at the expense of the poor and misguided, to see how they could do their bit to help to sort out the West’s social and economic malaise; they could stop talking stop preening and get a real job.
30.01.16 Does the world need Britain more than Britain needs the EU.
The battle for the votes of the British people in their much fought for referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU is beginning to take shape. It promises to be an emotional campaign full of the usual fury and righteous indignation, shonky statistics, falsehoods exaggerations and half truths on both sides delivered by a collection of “Big Guns” who sell the “concept” in or out one way or the other. This will be a campaign short on facts and honest argument.
Stuck beneath this thick adversarial froth with be the British people, required to take sides with little understanding of what is really at stake. So to get some thoughts in early we thought we would give some pointers as to how we feel at a Blue Revolution.
We always talk about “Value” rather than its liquid and easily produced derivative “Wealth”. Value is to economic survival what water is to physical survival. We have consistently argued that how a person country or empire produces value and who gets to control it is absolutely fundamental to understanding how that nation is constructed and more importantly how it works; namely to who’s advantage.
We have written about the EU before likening it to a feudal system and imploring people to consider what might happen if the EU gets too well established by say a British yes vote and like all systems an eventual fight to survive might ensues in the face of contradictions emerging. The EU will twist and turn and diminish people power to survive. Now it is time to develop that argument a little further.
Everyone with a basic education has heard of the aristocracy; these are the people who wield power and to secure their position acquire a nations surplus value (essentially its valuables) based smply on their inherited rank, many will have heard of a theocracy, people who within a faith based rank structure achieve pretty much the same thing and finally the plutocracy a system of power based on who has money or can control money. All are autocratic.
As we point out money and value are not the same thing. You can create a lot of money with very little value so a Plutocracy is not the same as an aristocracy but through their wealth the plutocrat controls society rather than through rank as it is with the aristocrat. However power is still wielded top down.
Post war Europe needed some overarching governance arrangements to ensure that it did not slide back towards armed conflict. Imagine a post war Europe, small nation states decimated by armed conflict twice within 50 years. The EU was an aspiration based on the desire to co operate and build strength through trade and a strong single market. Unfortunately just as all our other “ocracies” have had their day the EU quickly achieved the zenith of its original aim and then settled back into becoming a bureaucracy, and then from that it became a publicsectocracy.
This is a Blue Revolution word made up by us at Blue revolution to describe a society where the vast amount of social and economic value is controlled by a public sector paid for by the tax payers. This society consumes value because it has to keep its bureaucrats in work. The question is; does modern Europe still require this bureaucracy, is the work of the bureaucrat still essential as it was when post war Europe needed rebuilding, can we afford to keep this Bureaucracy fed with taxpayers cash? As a substitute for the bureaucracy we have proper trading agreements, a shared understanding of the importance of autonomy among nation states, and we have got over the neurosis of the last two wars, at least in economic terms. We trade with consent, choice and contract so essentially people understand how to operate in a civilised way….we would therefore argue; we no longer need the EU…….no one in Europe does!
The argument we would further advance is that the world needs more trade and co operation by those who create the social and economic value beyond the boarders of Europe, Africa and the Middle East for example. We need much less of this unaccountable EU bureaucracy which employs people on inflated salaries, salaries that don’t add social or economic value but is simply personal wealth for the recipients, who as individuals deliver little if anything of any economic worth.
In the same way we have thrown off control by feudal overlords and the clergy we should vote against more control by publicly employed Eurocrats and their form of autocracy their EU, a massive publicsectocracy. Down with another ocracy!!!
The world can trust the peoples of Europe to co operate and to trade with each other and other nations beyond Europe; spreading the language of trade and co operation based on Contract, Choice and Consent.
Britain needs to lead the way to a truly global approach to trade by voting “no” to the EU and thus “no”, to yesterday bureaucratic solution to tomorrows global problems. The world needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU and the people of Europe need Britain to vote out to get the blue revolutionary ball rolling.
01.02.16 Blue Revolution as seen from space.
Astrounaughts have been quoted as saying on their first orbit of the earth they talk about their nations, the second orbit their continents and the third their conversation turns to discussion about the world. They become it seems shamelessly internationalist.
Internationalism is usually associated with two ideologies; firstly Marxism lays claim to the original internationalism. The global rise of the proletariat. A few Trots still cling to the idea that there will one day be a Marxist revolution that will encompass the whole world. But modern experience suggests to us at A Blue Revolution that there is little chance of this happening when the recent experience of red revolution is a “vanguard” or revolutionary people of vision, become the government. When government is seen as the means by which “revolutionary” change comes about out democracy goes out of the autocratic window.
Islamism is the second pretender to the Internationalist throne. But whereas aspiring internationalist governments typically usher in an autocratic system similar to the feudal system, Islamism on the basis of recent experience ushers in Chaos and delivers horror on an industrial scale without even the small scale legitimacy conferred on an actual tribe.
When the spacemen and women are looking at the world they become immune to the nature of the political reality on this planet.
However we at a Blue Revolution have taken the view that it is possible to be “internationalist” without being either a government with feudal aspirations or a rag tag army of jihadists. We rely instead on the fact that more and more people on our blue planet have had their humanity and values installed by capitalism and therefore understand that human relationships both intimate, inter personal and legal are based on Contract, Choice and Consent. The western worlds legacy to our blue planet.
With these three harmless words emblazoned on the banners of the revolution (as opposed to their alternatives; corruption, collusion and coercion) people can begin to evaluate their contribution to the cause of Blue Internationalism with its underpinning fairness and equality.
Internationalism cannot be delivered by governments or quasi superstates like the EU….Their role is to protect individual people and businesses who are operating from within their jurisdictions thus promoting trade. This process of trade will eventually extend to people from other nations for the benefit of mankind.
All freely trading nations lift their people out of poverty and move their societies towards greater freedom and democracy for all. The only word of caution has to be that to achieve this internationalist goal there has to be a moral dimension to the “global free market” which does not encourage actions which promote moral decline. Our seven deadly sins and secular westernism sum up these risks. However with the renewed prospect of real social and economic value being created through co-operation between real economies by real working people as opposed to bureaucrats there will be less need to manufacture “wealth” (ie by QE) wealth which ends up in the hands of plutocrats like “Donald Trump” and Hugh Heffner.
When David Bowie sang “planet earth is blue and there is nothing I can do” we would respond with; yes there is, look at the planet and join a blue, as opposed to red or even green revolution. In today’s toxic world only ours is truly internationalist revolution…….but also perfectly safe.
04.02.16 The EU must accept Brexit…its progressive.
We sometimes disagree at a Blue Revolution. Like everyone in our neck woods the EU is testing us. Some of us were solidly in and others solidly out. But overall the arguments in and out are on the basis of different parts of the debate argued simultaneously and there are further splits generationally.
Younger people are on the whole pro EU seeing the economics of membership as essential to the survival of the UK. Statistics are used in the argument which are compelling and suggest that the possible consequences of Britain leaving the EU would be economically catastrophic. There is little evidence that this catastrophe is likely to happen….but it is a strong an powerful argument. Alongside it is the power and influence argument; we would loose power and influence if we left. On the other side of the debate we have older people who perhaps measuring the changes brought about since our membership of the EU sense that things are not quite as they expected them to be; too much immigration; too much power transferred to the EU too many restrictions and regulations.
The problem with this dichotomous debate is that it lacks a certain vision on both sides, but this lack of vision is without doubt most pronounced on the “out” side. Young people like vision. It is therefore from the perspective of the young a case of “In” is progressive and evolutionary and “out” is little Britain in decline. The “Out” campaign has nothing with which to build what seems to be their limited “out” vision, aside from memories of the 1970’s and echoes back to Parliament as sovereign. Thus the Out campaign is characterised by its opponents as being led by wonks, anoraks and weirdo’s and looses credibility as a result.
At a Blue Revolution we are people who like to think of ourselves as visionary so for us the reality of “out” is not quite so simple as unhappy feelings and a few historical facts. Here is why.
Britain was the first nation to industrialise and to drive capitalism throughout the world via its trade links with her empire. Elsewhere the industrial revolution began to send out into the world via industrialisation the keys principles of capitalism Contract, Choice and Consent. Contract, Choice and Consent are the building blocks of all free s0cieties or societies that aspire to be free.
The legacy of Capitalism (apart from Contract Choice and Consent) was to generate economic “value” in quantities that would have been mindboggling to simple tribal peoples. The combination of man, materials and machines made everyone better off and as importantly made life more certain. However some people got very rich and this gave rise to demands for the “product of the workers labour” to be more equally distributed. This would not happen out of choice, all property might be theft but there was no authority who could take it away and re distribute it, at least not until the 20th Century.
Eventually socialism in the form of the state took over in the UK and governments of all colours began, via taxes and benefits, nationalisation and state control to “redistribute” value and empower the working class. To do this ministries were set up and people employed to deliver the state objectives. This process cost money and eventually it began to cost too much and deliver too little so in the UK a general drift away from state control began under the Conservatives in the 1980’s and continues, sort of, today
Whilst this growth of socialism was going on in the Uk after the war, on the continent, wounded countries came together to achieve peace and prosperity by doing a very similar thing; creating a bureaucracy to manage relationships and economies to ensure peace between people, groups and countries. This process grew into the EEC and then EU and is still seen as an evolutionary process even though the process has really reached its zenith and has started to impede the Evolution of global free trade. Global trade that will be the liberator of peoples beyond Europe.
The “Internationalist” Blue Revolution vision therefore cannot come easily from a large mono ethnic and class based bureaucracy that controls many diverse and economically distinct and unique economies. But whilst that is a problem for many it does not have to be the way things are done. No European country needs this Bureaucracy to protect them and to “do their business” and “mediate” for them. They all have a deep awareness of the need to create value by respecting Contract Choice and Consent as the basis for freedom, equality and democracy. The Europe of the 21 century could safely desolve its super state and pass control back to its many nation states. This will promote the worlds next phase of evolution “Internationalism”; taking trade and co operation to the rest of the trading world thereby promoting through trade, freedom, equality and democracy and achieving greater peace in trade than can be found in war.
The EU was a reaction to a specific post war problem, that problem no longer exists and the EU now impedes the worlds economies preventing too many coming together to trade using the common language of Contract Choice and Consent. Britain leaving the EU is not the act of a reactionary “old” country but the evolutionary act of a revolutionary country who wants to break away from the political limits of its own continent and go out into the world to trade and trade with confidence.
05.02.16 The US might introduce socialism with Bernie S but let us hope they preserve self respect and personal responsibility unlike the UK version.
Socialism is a phase of social evolution identified by Karl Marx which within a Marxian paradigm is the “negation” of “capitalism”. In the west we still occasionally refer to “capitalism” as though our capitalism is the “Capitalism” that Marx would have recognised. Thankfully that capitalism no longer really exists. There are many complex reasons for this but the biggest killer of “Capitalism” has been the drift in the 20th century away from the capacity of “capitalists” to create economic “value” and the drift towards the new obsession with debt based “wealth”. This debt based wealth funds consumer spending or as it is better known “consumerism”. We no longer ask how much value does something have? we ask how much wealth or money can you get from trading it?
Capitalism was and will always be about creating economic value its inherent unfairness or “contradiction” was that this value created by labour was misappropriated by “Capitalists”. This no longer happens, at least not in the west. The demise of “Capitalism” and the intervention of government have changed the nature of western economies. Initially in Britain there was full on Socialism with state ownership of the means of production; now there is just welfare.
Socialism in the early to mid 20C and mainly in Europe was the point at which the state began a redistributive programme; taking value from the “Capitalists” and reallocating it through state ownership, health programmes and welfare to the workers. In Marxist terminology the government is giving more of the workers economic value back to them. It started in the UK after WWII.
The problem for the west is that the western economies no longer create value in anything like the quantity necessary to support all the welfare and health obligations to which they have committed themselves . We export our value creating requirements to China and within the “free market” the banking system and governments generate debt based wealth. Therefore we only seem to be able to support our people on the proceeds of debt…it is a kind of economic subterfuge; it looks like an economy based on real value but hold on, what’s this underneath it looks just like…….oh my god is it really just cash and personal wealth based on a pile of over-priced houses, stock, collateralised debt obligations and quantitative easing? Yes I’m afraid that is all it is. Welcome to post- industrial economics.
Delivering “socialism” in the US in something that is long overdue. The likes of Trump, Heffner, Buffett et al simply benefit from debt backed wealth. So whilst Capitalism no longer exists to be “negated” this unfair US system with its strutting coiffured buffoons who somehow benefit more of the proceeds of the nations debt than any one else, needs to be tackled. The workers of the US have had their noses rubbed in it for long enough.
In a debt based economy there should be an equality in how much of other peoples debt you benefit from.
So US socialism will be debt not value based. In that sense it is like the UK welfare system is now. Debt not value is the contradiction in modern socialist type systems. Debt will eventually overwhelm the Euro zone too and slowly re shape the EU and possibly even the US.
However a word of warning; as part of a “socialist programme” welfare should be a net to catch those in need, not a trap to keep them enslaved to welfare. Any US welfare system should therefore preserve self respect and self reliance and should avoid creating entitlement. failing to promote or maintain self respect and self reliance amongst too many welfare recipients is the problems with British welfare and it therefore undermines any attempt to get back to a more egalitarian “value” based economy. An eonomy where real economic value and real social value are created. An economy which balances the creation of social and economic value whilst preserving personal responsibility one might identify with as blue revolutionary.