The problem with the United Nations is that it has a perspective on the world shaped by two beliefs. The first is that western nations exploited black nations economically which is by and large true and secondly that it is now time to correct that by undermining western values. The problem for the UN and the culturally illiterate white elite is that they are being encouraged to undermine western values on the back of attacking past economic inequality. The worlds current inequality is not caused by western values which seek to liberate individuals but by religion, autocracy and ignorance. Characteristics we in the west are still fighting to remove in some places.
Firstly capitalism may have been a western ideology but it was only controlled by a minority of western people. Most white families at the height of the capitalist system, say around 1900 were exploited. There was no white privilege for them. Women didn’t have the vote and working-class men had only recently acquired it. Capitalism was an unfair system but it was capable of being made less unfair as workers became better educated and demanded rights that existed at first only for the capitalist class.
Thus the experience of workers improved as they were able to gain the vote, gain access to education, clean and safe working environments and could exercise the principles that underpinned capitalism namely contract, choice and consent.
Contract, choice and consent are the economic principles of capitalism that were slowly extended to more and more workers. It is these principles which are now under threat because the modern western elite and a growing number of nations in the developing world fail to see that whilst exploitation may have been unfair and wrong it reflected in economic terms rights we have now extended to more and more people. These economic rights have now assumed a social character and underpin ‘liberal’, personal and ‘human’ rights.
Being ignorant of the role of capitalism in creating individual rights is why rights are being undermined by an assault on what is seen as white western culture by the identity left-wing. Capitalism might have begun as ‘white’ culture but the economic and social rights it has created need to be extended to more communities and societies and not be undermined by crude racism based on ignorance of the role capitalism has played in liberating people of all races from cultures that enslave, discriminate and kill.
Humanity has experienced two revolutions in the last 10,000 years. Two revolutions since we were able to create more wealth than we needed as a species to survive. When this happened, it was possible to distribute it equally or alternatively for one man and his family or group to acquire that wealth and acquire the power that went with it. This latter model was revolution number one, it took much of humankind from hand to mouth tribal reality into the world of power, politics and inequality, in short, political authority was born. Whole systems of laws and faith were created to promote the ‘normality’ of this arrangement.
Religion tried to compensate for the inequality of this new economic world order. However economic reality cast aside the idealised visions of heaven on earth promoted by faiths like Judaism Christianity and Islam and gave only heaven in heaven.
This system of aristocratic families ‘owning’ almost all the wealth created by slaves and workers continued for thousands of years slowly moving out from the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Eventually, it arrived in Europe by the turn of the second millennium. Britain was probably too swampy, cold and hilly to generate enough wealth for anyone to waste time trying to acquire it after the Romans left……until 1066 or thereabouts.
Once Britain became subject to this autocratic feudal exploitation, any notion of equality disappeared and lives became a struggle to survive, not just survive against nature herself but against powerful ‘political’ forces too. Natural events shaped the reality of everyone’s lives, but whether it was war or famine the ‘top people’ the aristocracy always fared much better than those toiling at the bottom. And moreover, the ‘top people’ fought the ‘rabble’ to ensure the survival of their system.
Famine was a reality for the poor, but famine and plague were touch papers for the next great revolution. Again, economics played the most significant role. A shortage of labour drove up wages creating a class of trading merchants who by increasing their wealth could challenge the rights of crown, church and aristocracy.
Famine stoked riots but also stimulated agricultural innovation. The feudal system was quietly being undermined from the economic base. The religious legitimacy of a feudal ruler was now capable of being challenged by a class of people wealthy because of hard work and enterprise. Eventually, revolution number two swept away British Catholicism and promoted the work ethic.
By the seventeenth century, having been convulsed by revolution number two which whilst superficially about religion had its real origins in economics, the merchant class amassing a popular revolt finally took away through revolution the power of the king.
Capitalism was born from the ashes of the feudal system. Like all revolutions, it salvaged what it could from the ‘old ways’ adopting feudalisms top-down structure but with an economic model based on new ideas like the freedom to acquire wealth using principles of contract, choice and consent. Capitalism paid for its power outsourcing control to parliaments and courts rather than acquiring its own power based on feudal entitlement, status and birthright.
This populist revolution created the basis of our present Parliamentary and legal system. A mixture of feudalism and capitalism; a kind of political labradoodle. Not one thing nor the other! Very expensive, class-based but not status based. However, the elite capitalists paid for the system out of the profits made for them by the working class. Workers paid nothing directly to the state until about the twentieth century.
This model worked on and off, well into the twentieth century, notwithstanding the odd crisis or the wars it caused when it failed in places like Germany in the 1900s or 1930s. Where it has been successful it has for two hundred years underpinned freedom and rights to contract, make personal choices and consent to lives in general. Also unlike the other two other systems which pre dated it, tribalism and feudalism it has been flexible enough to extend rights to all adults by the late twentieth century. The left doesn’t understand the concept, but the world’s future should not be about socialism but about progressive capitalism. The rights-based equality of progressive capitalism is why ideologies promoted by the UN that hate equality, particularly for women, are turning capitalism into a hated ideology to be destroyed because of its origins in white European economics. As well as attacks from autocrats, ill-informed socialists and religious cranks, capitalism has its own problems too.
By the 1970s capitalism was again beginning to fail. Most of us didn’t realise it because just like the elite of the sixteenth century holding on to their feudal power, our ‘global’ elite began selling us the idea that all’s well in the global economy by creating the global ‘free market’. This approach enables them to hang onto their power. The so-called left-wing assist, acting like useful idiots using the new religion of ‘identity and diversity’ which differentiates the working class and sows class oppression and class confusion. So within the framework of capitalist rights and free market muddle have we got to the point of a third and probably final popular uprising or revolution?
Capitalism needs both the supply of goods and just as importantly the demand for them. Henry Ford paid his workers’ good wages and gave them time off so they could not only afford to buy a car…..they had time to drive it for leisure. Today we have broken this link between productive workers and consumers. We have out of the ashes of a broken capitalist system turned to debt to create the demand for products which as we consume them, make our global elite very rich but the debt both government and personal makes us poor. This is for us the first whammy. We pay with debt for a system that makes a political and economic elite rich.
In our globalised world our global elite doesn’t pay tax and moreover, they don’t employ many people. Those they do employ are on low wages, work in oppressive countries or at home their jobs are often subsidized by our governments and that means the taxpayer foots the bill. This is the second whammy.
The third and final whammy is that our whole debt based political and legal system is now very expensive having grown in size and scale since the end of the second world war. Now, of course, we ordinary workers have to pay for it.
So, what does this mean? It means we need another revolution. Revolution number three. A revolution based on working peoples twenty-first-century global economic realities. So in summary we have populism because:
- The political and economic system is more expensive than it has ever been but now ordinary workers, rather than the elite pay for it.
- Governments encourage debt to maintain the illusion that the economy works. It doesn’t, no economy can rely on debt and welfare forever.
- Working people’s voices have become excluded from political debate due to the end of open politics. Our current economic system has no money to distribute so left-wing politics is irrelevant and the capitalist system is now a bankrupt free-market relying on worker serviced private and government debt, so right-wing politics is irrelevant- we no longer need to debate this stuff we need a revolution!
- To preserve the rights, we gained with capitalism the right to contract, choose and consent, we need to ensure the free market survives. But that free markets survival can’t be based on debt. We need to shrink the bloated, unaccountable undemocratic and expensive state and give workers more time and more money to run our nation on our behalf. This is not socialism. This is not the power of the state controlling our lives but our lives controlling the state.
Is this revolution a long way off?
As working people, we are still holding out for a hero a Nigel Farage or Donald Trump? Or we are holding out for a political ‘party’ to save us. In France, they thought it was Macron! Any person or party which has to fit into our 18th-century political system will fail.
The system within which our heroes and parties operate is broken just like the economy. We need a new system that promotes our western values but doesn’t rely on the past political system to deliver our future. We need a revolution, a peoples revolution, a revolution of the independently minded blue collar worker. A Blue Revolution to bring religion to heel, promote equality, control top public sector wages, make corporations pay tax on national earnings, give workers more money and time and shrink the state so we can afford to live in it.
That is the workers challenge for the twenty first century.
John McDonell, Jeremy Corbyn, Paul Mason all claim some inspiration from Karl Marx. But identifying with Marx is very different from thinking like Marx. It is sadly true that no politician of the modern era thinks like Marx and indeed Lenin, Stalin and Mao would all have been considered ‘false prophets’ by Marx himself. He was a champion of working people and their lived experience. He also disliked the bourgeois attempt to hide its ‘slavery’ under a canopy of righteous concern be it by a charity or the State.
In economics, therefore, how is burdening the working class taxpayer with National Debt by trying to promote the interests of the rich with bourgeois economics in the form of neoclassical Keynesianism in any way Marxist?
In sociology how is the lefts ‘identity’ obsession even remotely promoting the interests of workers when these identity obsessions have abandoned any link to workers lived experience. The basis for Marxism is in science, not woolly idealism imposed from the top down.
Next time this Marxist ‘holy trinity’ bore the TV viewer with their opinions on how Marxist they are, take it with a pinch of salt. No one who grandstands above the working people is a Marxist. In their case, they are merely well-camouflaged members of the bourgeoisie. Or less politely…..class traitors.
Marx was a classical economist which explains why he wanted actual workers to ‘own’ the means of production. Workers, free from the need to work longer hours than necessary would have time off for politics, recreation and family life. Capitalists, of course, exploited workers by taking workers working hours so they could make a profit (Capital) and become, like an aristocracy. An aristocracy based on wealth acquisition rather than inherited status. Like elites, they forced additional effort from the workers but without actually going as far as killing them. Capitalists needed a workforce.
Socialism is the reaction of the State to that exploitative situation. A ‘socialist’ State takes the wealth from the capitalist and spends it on the workers. It doesn’t, however, go as far as giving the workers the ‘means of production’ but offers welfare etc. Workers still have to work the capitalists hours.
Workers are thus exploited by the State! Go too far with this model however and the State not only undermines the systems productive capacity it enslaves the workers as well. ‘Socialist’ States thus stop serving the workers and start to serve themselves. Hitler/Stalin/Mao get into power promoting the rights of workers but end up enslaving the working class……and often killing them.
Today we have a ‘Left-wing’ of such obvious naivety it has no idea what it’s role is supposed to be in what is in effect a 21st-century post ‘capitalist’ age.
To maintain its relevance as a ‘socialist’ party the Labour Party gathers together a collection of senior State and charity employees plus a massive constituency of the politically lame and out of touch. It became a party of minority and sectarian interests united in the belief that any ‘identity’ other than ‘worker’ is radical even if the identity is simply not being a Tory. Identity without economic relevance is utopian nonsense. There is no united, militant economically exploited industrial working class anymore, just a big bunch of people who hate their lives, the Tories, real workers with Brexit opinions and probably each other
The left cannot depart from its historical self-belief or their faith in the transformative power of the socialist State because it is ‘socialist’ and proudly so. But it is no longer revolutionary. Its revolution was fought, won and then became irrelevant between 1945 and 1979.
Socialism is now is now counter-revolutionary. It’s trying to persuade its members and voters to once again empower a socialist State and in doing so undermine the working people. Under socialism, empowering workers has never been on the cards. Socialism is all about the State.
The next revolution we get must to minimise the cost of the State and politically empower the workers. Socialism won’t do that because it can’t.
Why is it difficult to identify the cause of the distaste for the white middle-aged, middle-class male by the white non-grafting elite. Some have speculated that the elite are ingratiating themselves with the theologians of PC or virtue signalling the new culturally approved piety of cultural Marxism. Some of these arguments are persuasive and for one commentator Toby Young writing in the Spectator hopes to work out his preferred opinion before he has to part with more television licence fee money as the BBC elite are advocates of getting white middle-aged males off the box.
For Blue Revolution, it is a very straightforward issue, but hard to explain. So here goes. The elite has a hair trigger for ‘class’ being oversensitive about what they see as their own privileged position culturally politically and in the arts. However, they seem unwilling to grasp the fact that class, as anything meaningful in a Marxist sense no longer has relevance and, rather embarrassingly, it has been replaced by a global resurgence of the ancient concept of ‘status’. Obsessing about class and ignoring status allows them to overlook the new post-capitalist structures that have created their own privileged position in life.
In classical Marxist terms, the ‘class of a person is created by the relationship between that person and the means of production and in particular, their role in creating wealth. The modern elites are not therefore defined by ‘class’ but as such but by their status. This is because they have gained and hold power and influence not by exploiting workers in a Marxian sense, but by operating within a closed system that has power and influence paid for by taxation or debt which is taken at source from workers wages, or in the case of the BBC the licence fee.
This creates an embarrassing problem for the ‘right on’ elite. They recognise their own superiority compared to what they incorrectly see as the ‘working class’. However, its difficult to accept their lofty position may be part of the problem based on their own ‘privilege’ because as pseudo-Marxists they adopt the view that they are there to promote as ‘class outsiders’ the interests of the working class and all its minority offshoots be they black, transgender or Gay. This is ‘Blairism’ or ‘Clintonism’. This explains why they still think there is a Capitalist class that needs bashing and don’t see there a privileged class of elites of which they are part.
For the pseudo-Marxist elite, therefore, the only way of maintaining this idea of working-class ‘good’ ‘middle class’ bad, is to turn their back on to those they see as less important members their class group. This is the use of status and status has never been class-based, it is an ancient privilege that is conferred by acquired or inherited power, and is definitely not linked to one’s role in the grubby world of the productive economy.
This privilege passes within families (Kinnock’s/Blairs/Freud’s etc) and allows a person to publicly denounce their own ‘class’ members with a degree of relaxed superiority based on their status. To preserve their status and feel good about their values this high-status elite are able to denounce or sack those of similar ‘class’. All with the connivance of the status-dependent 21st-century’ state’ or the Board of the BBC and then to dress up their values as a war on ‘class’ privilege, as opposed to status. This pretty much explains the battle lines in Brexit. The High-status elite against the lower and middle-status workers.
They get away with it because they understand how the intellectually deficient ‘left’ respond approvingly to ‘dog whistle’ terms like a class privilege and class disadvantage.
The modern world is turning back towards status as in the West ‘class’ as a meaningful way of defining people declines in relevance. Most of the non-capitalist world still reflects ‘status’ which is an ancient form of describing power and importance. In much of the wider world as well as in the West there is no such thing as a modern exploiting middle class so there is no exploited ‘working class’. Even so class privilege rather than status continues to be the elites ‘straw man’ tackled by virtuous pseudo-Marxists whilst they cunningly ignore their own illegitimate status and the illegitimate power that goes with it.
The ‘riddle of history solved’ is relatively easy to explain. It is basically why so many people create economic value but so few people ever get to control it. From the moment we had more than we needed to survive as small tribes, systems of authority have sprung up to control surplus value and those authorities have controlled people. Whether it is the proto-feudalism of the Pharaohs or the early Kingdom of Israel or Muhammad’s Muslim Empire ordinary people has been subject to the violent rule of the minority. Religion playing the role of defending the social and economic reality for all involved.
The political ‘Right’ claim that the capitalist model delivers a greater equality. Certainly, in destroying feudalism it put an end to control and servitude for workers by those of superior status, the nobility, but in its place, we gained a more mobile and ever-changing hierarchy of capitalists and their political servants in parliament ‘contracting’ to undermine the rights of workers. Socialism was a reaction to this capitalist exploitation. It sought to control capitalism and redistribute capitalist wealth in the ‘name’ of the workers. Wherever socialism was introduced however it only ever acted in the name of the workers’ apart from the brief period between 1945 and 1970 in the UK when it did serve the social as opposed to economic interests of the workers. After 1970 it ceased serving anyone’s interests other than the State itself. As the ‘socialists’ have always put it the workers were ‘exploited’ by the ‘bourgeoise’ or capitalists as they are now better known (see Opinion 11/02/2018) so the States job was to exploit them back.
In its defence, capitalism did create lasting legal principles such as contract, choice and consent which as Karl Marx anticipated have ‘taken on a social character’ and have become an expectation of working people the western world over. Preserving these values is now a revolutionary act in the face of the counter-revolutions being waged by the forces of the ideology of Islam, the corrosive effects of crony capitalism and the confused ideology of twenty-first century socialism shorn of its economic role to exploit capitalism in the name of workers and now neurotically fretting about ‘identity’ as though a collection of militant groups is a substitute for a revolutionary working class.
So the ‘Right’ is not right in thinking that ‘capitalism’ is fair… it’s not it needs regulation. But the left is wrong to think that capitalism is so wrong it needs exploitation by the State. Exploitation of capitalism by the State on ‘behalf’ of the workers has simply created an unaccountable class of State bureaucrats who no longer exploit the capitalists to pay for the State but exploit the workers to pay for it instead. This is therefore why the Left can’t be ‘left’…because it is now hell-bent on exploiting the workers through taxation and debt and the right isn’t right because capitalism is incapable of acting fairly and will always seek to exploit workers and always with the connivance of the State, even a left-wing State. Hence the Blair/Clinton/EU obsession with supporting crony capitalism.
The State is not the Nation the people are and they need to secure in perpetuity for our daughters and sons the values of contract, choice and consent and take over the running of the Nation from either an ideological ‘left’ or ideological ‘right’ State. Getting rid of the power of ideology is clearly the place to start particularly with the ideology of Islam trying to colonise both the left and the right!!
3rd June 2018
The Rt Hon James Brokenshire
Secretary of State for Housing
Communities and Local Government
2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF
Dear Secretary of State
One issue which is causing ordinary people great concern and is clearly not being addressed within communities is associated with the high numbers of people of the Muslim faith living in concentrated areas of inner cities. There are many challenges arising from this development some of which may be reflected in attitudes towards other faiths. There, therefore, appears to be little integration as the “British way of life” is seemingly Haram to many observant Muslims.
Having reviewed what may be behind the creation of a form of separate development, it seems to us that there have been a number of reports which have been significant in the past and continue to exert influence over the behaviour of Public Sector organisations and we believe this impedes the development of a shared set of twenty-first century values.
The Parekh Report published by the Runnymede Trust in 2000, the Mc Pherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the Runnymede Trust consultation into “Islamophobia” have in our view all resulted in unintended consequences that are impacting on communities now.
Taking each, in turn, the Parekh report was comprehensive, well researched and influential. It fixed the policy expectations that were considered necessary to deliver a safe harmonious multicultural Britain in the new Millenium. It was culturally Marxist in its emphasis on prejudice, discrimination exclusion and inequality, as opposed to being class-based. However, the upshot of such top-down engineering is that it presupposes that the solution to important issues can be delivered by government and public sector policy.
However, it is interesting to note that the report did make the following percipient comment “The need for both equality and difference and to respect the rights of both individuals and communities appears to be beyond the compass of existing political vocabularies. The debate about British multiculturalism needs to pursue these long-term questions. It has hardly begun”
We would argue it has never started. This inability to meet the demands of equality and difference has established we believe a culture of organisational paranoia about the negative role in which organisations see themselves having unintentionally reinforced prejudice. As a result in places like Rochdale organisational fear and the absence of the ‘shared core values and human rights culture’ advocated by Parekh led the abuse of vulnerable white girls. This unintended consequence is now leading to anger being directed at the State by ordinary working people and their anger is both justified and understandable. If a report promotes a set of policy suggestions of a legal and procedural nature with vague suggestions about “values” that are not adopted by all communities and children are harmed, people will be moved to anger.
In respect of the Runnymede Trust Commission on Islamophobia in 1997, it identified a ‘mad’ view of Islam by westerners and came up with eight ways that groups with opposing views could overcome prejudice. For example, seeing groups as different but having equal worth, as opposed to seeing groups as violent etc.
The problem with this method is that it has been adopted by liberal western groups and yet the failure to adopt this method of mutual understanding by grassroots Muslims has resulted in a failure of dialogue at street level. It is sadly a commonly held view that Western culture is haram! The effect is that there has been a general retreat from dialogue at community level unless publicly funded schools are taking non-Muslim children to mosques. There is, therefore, a general reinforcement of separate development. This phenomenon has not assisted the aftermath of Rochdale. Communities simply do not widely share the same values and clearly have no desire so to do. The Islamic faith contains many values at odds with many of those of the twenty-first century West with little mutual respect particularly in respect of the treatment of women and girls.
Finally, the report into the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence identified institutional racism within the police. The allegation of police racism continues to cause problems in communities today. If prejudice, discrimination, exclusion and inequality are identified with public bodies as suggested by Parekh then those bodies like Police and Local Authorities will fail to serve their communities. They will and do operate to politically safeguard themselves from the possibility of charges of racism by the government or overt Political Correctness from the press.
Currently, knife crime and gang violence are establishing primitive values that are totally at odds with values compatible with the twenty-first century and little is being done to address it. Is there a “Queen’s Peace” in our inner cities?
If it is as stated that these issues remain beyond current ‘political vocabularies’ then it is urgent that action is taken. We would urge Her Majesty’s Government to consider a wide-ranging commission and consultation at all levels of society exploring the issue of community integration. There must be no hiding from harsh realities like faith justified abuse that has become established in some communities nor the social failure in white working-class communities that has created many of the victims. We need to have an open and transparent debate before the differentiation of communities, the lack of shared values; (the ambition of Parekh) starts to cause a generalised breakdown of moral cohesion.
On behalf Blue Revolution
Here at Blue Revolution, we argue that all ideas including religious ones are shaped by economic reality rather than being plucked from the air by prophets or soothsayers. Look at any society at any time in history and there will be patterns and rituals linked to the ‘economic circumstances’ of that society be it a tribal, feudal or a capitalist society. These economic circumstances are formed either by levels of scientific ignorance or scientific discovery and how this influences the way economic value or wealth is created as well as who gets to control that wealth. Essentially all this forms a prevailing ‘ideology’ a belief system if you like, with numerous ideological ‘pretenders’ to challenge it, some more or less credible than others. Socialism has been a challenger to capitalism just as Christianity tried to challenge the world of the first century in the Middle East.
Much is made by Christians of the role of Christianity in creating capitalism. This seems at odds with our ‘economic determinism’ as Christianity should be a product of economic circumstances not the originator of them. The Christian message was certainly unusual in the first century but it was utopian and in no sense capable of replacing either the barbarism of the warring tribes from Abraham in the Old Testament to Muhammad and jihad in the seventh century nor the feudalism stirring into life during the same period. Christianity, however, could not have happened had there not been an increase in available wealth to be distributed fairly as described by Christ, or unfairly as happened under feudalism. Christianity was a post-tribal ideology like feudalism but one so passive as to be overwhelmed by barbarism when barbarism resurfaced with Muhammad and jihad in the seventh century.
The problem for Christianity was that wealth and the desire to gain control of it created an aggressive patriarchal feudal system. The parable of the loaves and fishes and Christ’s invocation to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, render unto God that which is God’s” was not a credible economic ideology given feudalisms economic impulse to control from the top. But along with ‘love thy neighbour’ and ‘turn the other cheek’ Christianity did create an ideology of peace that allowed stability within a warring and fractious region, consolidating feudalism. This Christian inspired passivity allowed for the separation of religion from the economy and State. Which in turn led to prosperity. This prosperity only lasted for about seven hundred years though. It ended with the advance of Islam.
Within seven hundred years Islam would by force of arms take the Middle East from relative stability to wars based on banditry, domination and forced conversion to Islam in the name of Allah and all at the point of the sword; jihad. Being an ideology of warfare and enforced submission, Islam’s glorious age only came with its conquest of feudal dominions in the Middle East, all pretty much concluded by the middle ages. This ideology of war and conquest secured the Middle East for the Muslim world and rendered the Jews and Christians second-class citizens in what had once been their prosperous homelands.
Sensing the extinction of Christendom in the late 11th Century Pope Urban sanctioned the Crusades. The Crusades, therefore, were not offensive wars they were defensive wars, an attempt to protect feudal Christendom which had surrendered to Islam’s ideology of warfare and banditry. The crusades failed spectacularly to protect Christendom from Islam.
The early economic success of a Christian Middle East fuelled Islamic expansionism. Islam would not have gained any headway had not the economic strength in the region stimulated the Arab tribes to unite under one leader worshipping one God and embark on an ideologically driven programme very much at odds with what had become the relative stability of early feudal ‘Christendom’.
So, putting Christianity, the crusades and Islam in an economic context, one needs to see religion as no more than ideology driven by economics with, in the case of Islam, a ‘God’ sanctifying greed and brutality. Whether an ideology takes off as Islam was able to do and Christianity largely failed to do in the Middle East between the seventh and nineteenth centuries, depends upon whether it reflects the economic needs that relate to that time. Christianity being a passive faith derided by Adolf Hitler for its weakness, allowed feudalism to evolve but likewise was powerless to stop Islamic expansionism.
Having secured various successful feudal kingdoms and dominions Islam’s doctrinal obsessions saw the end of progressive social and economic evolution in the Middle East. Indeed, such is the capricious notion of the Islamic God that everything ‘evolutionary’ or progressive is a blasphemy, essentially stopping economic development in its tracks. Islam having appropriated feudalism continues to operate this socio-economic model today having nowhere in the world progressed anywhere near democracy. Feudalism in the twenty-first century is politically about as advanced as Islam can become, given its doctrinal demand for control, compulsion and submission. This can be seen in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
With Christianity routed in the Middle East, it fared better in Europe where arguably the climate didn’t suit the Islamic warriors and there was little in the way of booty after the retreat of the Romans. Continuing with its ideology of ‘turn the other cheek’ Christianity contributed to the economic success of the western world because, just as it yielded to early feudalism, it was flexible enough to ‘turn the other cheek’ when the juggernaut of scientific discovery and rationality (the Enlightenment) fired up capitalisms engines in the 17th century. By being benign and allowing the economy and State to evolve independently of faith, it allowed progressive social and economic development
Christianity, therefore, facilitated economic and social progress, unlike Islam it didn’t stop it in its tracks and whilst always two steps behind capitalism (as we would expect as economic determinists) in terms of driving equality, Christianity allowed capitalism to deliver the economic rights to contract, choose and consent that emerged from the Protestant work ethic and become mass industrialisation and then in the twentieth century ‘social justice’. Capitalism has in the subsequent three centuries liberated people within all the nations of the free world. Whilst Christianity has all but faded away. However, just like Christianity in the first century, capitalism is now weak and complacent and has out of cultural ignorance, given the green light to Islamic expansionism. Where this will lead us ‘god’ only knows.
Karl Marx as anyone who reads our posts will know was an economic determinist. Even now this is an ‘unfashionable’ theory as it places all ‘ideas’ as the outcome of economic circumstances, including religious and political ideas. Thus, the demands of religion or politics are simply a reflection of how economic value is created and who controls it and disposes of it. Every phase in history to date has been a struggle between those who have amassed economic value (the powerful) and those who created it for them (the poor).
Until the seventeenth century, most people were in bondage of one form or another, the birth of capitalism in the eighteenth century took away the overt bonds between the powerful and poor and replaced them with contract, choice and consent. Little changed but in theory at least people were ‘free’. With the end of the feudal system, hard work, luck and a talent for enterprise could turn anyone into a capitalist, even those who had previously been bound to others.
The world of the eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries was characterised by ‘free’ people winning and losing economically. This economic paradox is what intrigued Karl Marx. Capitalism was a system that was in all senses ‘just’ but was clearly unfair. It was ‘just’ because it was based on Contract, Choice and Consent unlike the values of the feudal system, control, compulsion and coercion but….it was unfair because the elite, the capitalists, made the system work for their benefit. The composition of the capitalist class, unlike that of the aristocracy, changed as economic fortunes changed, but the system was politically robust enough to survive whoever was rich or poor. To preserve itself capitalism created institutions to support it. Political parties, parliaments, Laws and Local Authorities, an established religion and more recently ‘state broadcasters’ all combined to preserve the status quo. After the Second World War two socialist governments of both Labour and the Conservatives sought to extend the rights of contract, choice and consent to as many workers as possible as well as redistribute the economic value more evenly via tax and welfare regimes.
Well, that story takes us to about 1960. After about 1960 capitalism went into one of its frequent periods of collapse. Capitalism collapses all the time and according to Karl Marx would finally leave a legacy of workers who could both recognise and utilise the principles of contract, choice and consent but within an economic system that was under the control of the workers and not the capitalists. The surplus value that made the capitalists rich would be distributed fairly amongst the working people who created it. The end of unfairness would arise because the people would have economic equality which would generate social equality and a fair income for all. Equality between all people, men, women, and people with a variety of different lifestyles would prevail as there would be no basis for discrimination as everyone’s talents would be needed within an economy of mutual interdependence. We are a long way from this model happening but some of the principles have merit, particularly if applied to the public sector.
All models of the economic and social organisation must arise from the base, from the working people who, recognising their equal status as workers only seek to take out of the collective pot an amount that reflects their contribution to the pot with some account taken of their unique needs (having children for example). The mechanism for this is of course contract, choice and consent. A process that both reflects and reinforces equality at every social and economic level; between politicians and people and between the people themselves.
The ‘State’ would shrink back and become merely a way of enforcing equality within the Nation and upholding Contract, Choice and Consent. A legal system would be needed not representing ‘capital’ but the sometimes conflicting needs of people within a contractarian society. This would take eighteenth and nineteenth-century capitalist principle into the twenty-first century. But something is preventing that happening.
The answer to why t hasn’t happened is complex. The ‘capitalist’ system was designed to protect ‘capital’ amassed by the rich, capital created by the worker. Today we have the ghost of a capitalist system that has collapsed but leaving behind its complex eighteenth-century formal power relationships. So, the good news for the worker is that we have contract, choice and consent welfare and health care. The bad news is the system still requires unequally distributed wealth to function and this is now created by the banking system and the State at large via National Debt and we the working people are paying for an army of rich public servants and a financial and political elite with personal and National Debt.
Because the nature of the problem is complex the problem we have in changing this situation is also complex. As working people, we still don’t see ourselves as a mass movement sharing the same values, so we idly identify ourselves with political parties of all stripes that are hostile to our instinctive dislike of the debt-financed political and economic elite. In this sense, the confused socialist and Green party along with the Lib Dems stand for a continuation of the top-down relationship between State and People even though ‘capitalism’ as an economic system requiring a command and control relationships to protect ‘capital’ no longer exists. It’s an oddity that socialism is in Marxist terms still a top-down, command and control ideology, that seeks to reinforce the power of the State and is, in Marxist terms, therefore ‘counter-revolutionary. In that sense Blair, Corbyn and Clinton are all the same. Counter-revolutionaries and the people instinctively know it.
So, into this ideological muddle comes the principles of A Blue Revolution. A worker’s revolution that seeks to take the values of our society, contract, choice and consent and use them to form a State that is flatter, cheaper, economically more equal and significantly more democratic and ecologically less harmful.
This model won’t be delivered by a socialist type party. Socialism is paternalistic and relies on a powerful State just like top-down religion requires a powerful God to deliver ‘justice’. Socialism is no help to the future, indeed with its top-down obsessions, it is getting in the way of progress.
So it leaves either an upsurge in support for A Blue Revolution, which is unlikely in the next two decades or an enlightened Conservative Party to do the Nations bidding and restructure our State along the lines sketched out above. The detail will be more complex but broadly the public sector must be reconfigured so public services like health and police etc are not delivered using industrial top-down hierarchical models with huge wages at the top, which are unreflective of the actual effort put in. We need to develop what we describe as social models to deliver public services.
Similarly, the State needs to withdraw from all areas of moral behaviour aside from protecting the vulnerable and allow all adults to ‘contract’ as responsible people. We can no longer afford to subsidize ‘lifestyle’ issues and that must include having children. If people want to have children, they should contract with each other and not simply default to the ‘State’ to pay for them. There is no ‘capitalist’ paying taxes for our welfare, we are all paying for it with our debt. Marriage should be a proper contract and the state should simply ensure a contract exists if people have children, just as it does for a property.
Finally, our political system is binary to reflect the eighteenth-century obsession with land and capital. Binary systems are prone to failure in the modern world as the two sides coalesce around ‘ideological’ positions and the people get ignored. This has happened too many times to recount but the EU is the most striking example of political failure. We need to change the political system so that people get in who are able and willing to think rather than obey party diktat. If we got rid of parties or rather they got rid of themselves and we had a larger number of politically minded people involved in running our nation we would not need to reform the electoral system. We only need to do that because we have political parties operating within a binary parliament.
The revolution may come eventually, but we hope before the debt-dependent free market collapses or the top down cultural Marxists inflict either totalitarianism on the workers or even worse religion takes hold. No one really knows what they the elite are up to. But everything they have done over the last forty years fails the sniff test.
Islam is unashamedly seventh century as a faith and political ideology. Very simply its values go back to the days of tribal agrarianism and have a doctrine of ‘no change’ dictated from God to Muhammad by the Archangel Gabriel. Individual Muslims may change but the faith upon which they depend does not. It won’t reform, it can’t reform!
Islam is, therefore, pre ‘rights’ which only came along as a realistic expectation for some men in the 18th century with the freedom to contract, make choices and consent, requirements of the emerging capitalist system. Back then, these rights were really only available to ‘capitalists’ who were also known as ‘the bourgeois’. Most people back then didn’t count, they were ‘workers’ but in theory, they had the same rights as the capitalist.
Islam being of the seventh century makes no reference to peoples rights but instead has control, compulsion and submission at its core. These are values totally at odds with what we have come to expect today. That is not surprising, however, ‘hand to mouth’ tribal societies that relied on brutality and ‘booty’ both human and economic, such as the one Muhammad came from would all have been exactly the same. Muhammad simply turned seventh-century economic necessity into an ideology or ‘faith’ and it’s been exported around the world ever since!
So why do the political “hard Left’ support Islam with its pre rights values, its control and submission ideology? It seems odd to us that within the ranks of Antifa’s and other so-called progressive ‘Leftwing’ groups’ people rail against those who, far from being ‘Islamophobic’ or racist, are simply trying to stand up for modern ‘western values’. Basically standing up for the right of all men and women to contract, make personal choices and consent as this is the legacy of our capitalist past. Upon these values, we have built freedom and democracy.
So the explanation. As with all dumbing down, it seems as though the ‘Left’ don’t really understand the principles of Left-wing philosophy described by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and therefore don’t recognise that by supporting Islam and destroying ‘capitalism’ in the way they advocate, they are falling into the trap of promoting regressive ideas. They see ‘capitalism’ simply as a bad system to be overthrown wholesale rather than one where the values should be preserved and extended to working people, whilst change occurs at an institutional level.
Islamic radicals see in the hard ‘Left’ people who like them, violently hate capitalism and also seem to hate Western values too. Maybe yes or maybe no!
Are there ‘Left-wingers’ and Antifa’s who know what they are doing and have misogyny driving their indifference to women and girls rights when they support Islam? There may well be some but the reality for us is the modern Uk and the US ‘Left-wing’ doesn’t understand that overthrowing ‘capitalism’ should not involve overthrowing capitalism’s values but only changing capitalisms unfair ‘bourgeois’ institutions. Institutions like it’s binary Parliaments, Local Authorities, State broadcasters, and established religion plus the unrepresentative bourgeois Political Parties.
By being cavalier with capitalisms values the left is at risk of throwing our ‘rights’ baby out with their anti-capitalist bathwater. Should we be concerned? Well yes because more out of ignorance than intent, the ‘Left’ is ushering modern civilisation out the door whilst the seventh-century climb in via the window.