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.
We are as ordinary people often given religious advice by many theologians of ‘faith’. Often the advice is anodyne, be nice to each other that kind of thing and sometimes it might be a little less nice, kill the non-believer for example. These theologians will, of course, argue their faith is the true faith and that you should follow them. What of course they won’t tell you is that faith is the product of economic circumstances. They won’t say that because they don’t believe it. Religion comes from heaven and not the earth upon which we walk they will say.
That may be a hard concept to grasp at first. Well, let us explain it like this. Imagine a world where you had to steal from other groups just to survive. You would be imagining a world that hasn’t really existed for at least 2000 years but has existed in the past. You have just imagined the ‘economic circumstances’ and pretty rotten they are too! Such a world would kill with little mercy. You don’t want many male prisoners but some women and girls would help to build your tribal strength. You would have no concept of rights. It would simply be to kill or be killed, submit and obey. ‘Ownership’ would be by possession. The man, and of course back then warriors were only men, would acquire ownership without a “contract” they took what they wanted and that as we have said included people, so no “rights” either. To our way of seeing things, this is scary stuff. Sparta in Greece was like this in antiquity and other places were too. It was a common phenomenon for early humanity and it was called by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels ‘Barbarism’. It is easy to see why.
Having established the economic circumstances, we have will have behaviours that reflect those economic circumstances, such as killing, stealing and owning by violence, punishing with cruelty. To make sure this system worked one would need some ‘morality’. A morality that reflected the harsh material circumstances and justified the brutal behaviour. It would serve two functions it would unite people and also ensure that stealing and fighting were accepted as a way of life under strict conditions. You could not steal from each other for example.
There is a line in the film ‘Salmon Fishing in the Yemen’ where they take farmed fish and put them is a tank of water. The water is still and the fish swim everywhere. However, once the water flows the fish swim against the current and once character remarks “ah it is in their nature”. The theologians of faith would like us to believe that their expectations of us are “in our nature” so that we submit to their teaching. Often, they will talk about issues to do with sex and gender, so it looks like things might be ‘in our nature’. But we are not farmed salmon. We, economic determinists, say there is no ‘human nature’ just the beliefs and values that relate to the economics of various periods in history, promoted as still relevant today in the form of religion. You may have ‘spirituality’ but religion is a way of shaping that spirituality to the advantage of an ancient or in the case of modern ‘bourgeois’ Christianity more recent economic elite.
Today we have morality and laws derived from the values of capitalism to thank for our way of life, bourgeois morality as Karl Marx called it. It is the most modern morality, but even it is it is becoming out of date as our economies in the West take a turn for the worse. With capitalist morality came contract, choice and consent, which in turn gave us our freedom and an 18th-century democracy. It took a while to throw off older pre-capitalist values like gender, faith or racial inequality, but in the end, we did and now our rights reflect our ‘economic’ circumstances, the capitalist inspired free market.
So, we can stop worrying then? Well yes and no. The free market like the capitalist system itself needs real value derived from hard productive work to survive but now it is on the life support machine of debt. Our modern ‘bourgeois’ bankers, elite politicians in US or EU etc can see that our ‘economic circumstances’ are weakening by the decade, so they will want to maintain their power whilst controlling us in an impoverished economic situation. A State managed debt dependent ‘free market’ will have to have a new morality and at its core won’t be contract, choice and consent, we will have to behave or else. There are signs this is starting to happen now, and there are religions that can see an opening for a new kind of oppression, handy when our Nation has been bankrupted by our State elites and people are angry. Unless we use our hard-won capitalist values wisely we will undermine the case for them and someone will come along and challenge their legitimacy. Then we will all be in trouble…a sort of pre-seventeenth century trouble too…..nasty.
Next weeks second (and final) post in this series will look at how we as individuals can use contract, choice and consent in a way that ensures their survival and preserves our freedom. And yes it is determined economically and in a collapsing western economy.
Westworld is the name we have given to the nations of the Western world. The UK, Canada, and the US plus of course the European Union. Westworld has subsidiaries in South America and the Middle East.
It doesn’t seem a day goes by without more and more evidence of a crisis in Westworld. We know the symptoms: mass immigration, failure to integrate by large groups of people from places like North Africa, economic stagnation remedied by debt and an apparent disdain by our ‘Elite’ for the values of the Enlightenment, reflected in the apparent promotion of values hostile to ordinary worker’s freedom of speech. Enlightenment values of freedom and rationality underpin the principles of capitalism: namely contract, choice and consent and with them came our precious, albeit limited democracy.
So, what has gone wrong? Is it class warfare? is it a conspiracy by the Elite to control working people? Is it global backhanders from Saudi princes? is it naive top-down Cultural Marxism gone mad? Is it an exhausted liberalism and welfarism that has simply given up in the face of a moral onslaught from some individuals from the Islamic world and particularly North Africa and the Middle East? Is it the birth of a new global economic model?
Or is it a bit of all of them?
Welfare hasn’t really helped the West, but it may be unavoidable in a world of declining economic strength. There is no doubt that the social reform agenda that has been delivered since the end of World War two it has been a mixed blessing. Policies, like liberating the gay community a social and economic good, reducing hatred and fear within our communities and bringing the gay community foursquare into huge areas of economic productivity, has proven popular and progressive. Abortion became a necessary evil, it prevented misery for women and along with the contraceptive pill liberated them from a life with limited choices. Limited choices for women are once again being promoted by some within some incumbent faith communities using religious text as a justification.
Liberalising the Divorce Laws was again necessary, preventing a lot of misery for adults whilst an unintended consequence has been passing misery and depression onto many children. The economic aim was perhaps to maintain parents in the workplace and increase overall consumption (two TV’s as opposed to one!), whilst unintentionally rendering too many young people damaged by early adulthood and therefore economically inactive; the consequence of a “messy” divorce. It isn’t divorce, that is the problem, of course, it is the ease by which adults feel able to have children who then get embroiled in the emotional horror of the divorce itself. That is perhaps down to welfare again. It may also link to the economic uncertainties being created by the exhausted capitalist system as it rolls back to the West displacing whole nations from the value-creating juggernaut of capitalism or simply leaving people behind at home.
These are three big-ticket ‘social’ reforms of the post-war era. However, the impact has been different in respect of each. The latter two have left an unintended and expensive legacy both socially and economically. But we are where we are here in Westworld and no one would want to reverse the social progress achieved so far.
With capitalism only thriving in the Far East and China both active on the economic world stage, Westworld has been left with a legacy of unachievable moral and social expectations, declining economies and debt. With a white-faced Anglo-Saxon elite realising that the world that made them rich or powerful or both is in a state of permanent decline, they are forced to look around for a fashionable theory or policy to revitalise that which made them who they are. Now it all seems to have failed they consolidate their privileged position and then give up trying to advance ours, in fact, they make matters worse for working people by trying to place the guilt for the consequences of their failure on us in the form of ‘white privilege’.
The Elites incompetence has come close to killing the economic goose that once laid capitalism’s golden egg. But the goose isn’t dead because the Westworld working people are becoming an economically literate and motivated radical force driven by anger and constrained only by the old-world order of financial and social privilege. This hegemonic system will have to be burst asunder before the workers of the West can be liberated from the oppressive control of our Elites.
If our Elite continues to oversee the world’s economic affairs the Western economies are doomed. Hiding behind the protectionism of Trump’s ‘America first’, or the EU Customs Union the Western world is heading towards economic stagnation. As a result, our culture is at risk of being overwhelmed in places by the ancient simplicities of Nationalism or resurgent Islam offering solutions to Westworld’s social problems and emboldened in their determination to change our way of life by the power of engineered mass migration.
The Islamic world may believe it has some solutions to the Westworld moral crisis, but this simply isn’t the case. Islam has a poor track record of furthering economic and social evolution. Following a period of renaissance when Islam ‘secularised’ in the 12th century, when it became feudal, the various iterations of the faith since then would impede the evolution of the Middle East from then on with only a brief ‘enlightenment’ from the 19th to mid-20th century as capitalism held sway and again secular reform was intended to bring prosperity across the Muslim world. As crony capitalism has failed across the West and the Middle East some Islamic nations have re-adopted Sharia as opposed to secular constitutions. What else should be the response to economic stagnation in the 20th and 21st century Middle East one might ask. Well, a rebooted capitalism with the demand that its values are progressed to all people.
Oil money in the twenty-first century is offering some ‘progressive’ development of a very limited and questionable sort in Saudi Arabia a country promoting fundamentalist Islam around the world, but a country that without oil wouldn’t exist as a viable nation-state. So, with capitalism collapsing in the weaker Islamic nations and Islam as a faith resurgent and confident, the Westworld worker has street corner theologians shouting down our values as our utterly lost Elite turn a blind eye. Westworld has its own dodgy theologians of course.
When one listens to the theologians of Westworld, in the US the Clintons and Obama, in UK Blair and Nick Clegg, in the EU every technocrat with a microphone and in Canada Justin Trudeau one can see people who simply can’t grasp the concept that the system that made them rich is finished. Whilst the system may have finished for them however, it has plenty of life in it, if it is given to the people at large. The Elite seem unwilling to do that and we are therefore at risk of having our culture compromised by advancing ideologies of Nationalism or from some quarters a demand for the promotion of radical or even just observant Islam. Both would limit the rights of working people. Therefore in creating the demand for repressive change, our Elite is now a threat to us, Westworld’s working people like never before. So, what are the causes of the Elite’s and our collective crisis?
At the top of the political sphere, the Elite promote the old-fashioned idea that debt unconnected with investment can be a stimulus to growth. They have also embarked upon regeneration wars to bomb democracy into the Middle East and North Africa, whilst hoping to reconstruct these places using Western firms and Middle Eastern oil money. The consequence was as we know complete failure. Additionally, in rubble-strewn failed states Islamism becomes coherent as a way of ordering an otherwise chaotic society, so the world got ISIS. ISIS of course inspired by the hard-line Sunni Muslims of Saudi Arabia promote the example of seventh century Mohammad as a major influence on their way of life, a life of shameless brutality.
On the home front and for working people welfare has unavoidably become the Elite’s replacement for real social and economic value creating employment. Within the context of declining economies and a new reliance on debt, there is the illusion of a vibrant free market economy which whilst failing to keep the West on top economically has continued to reassure the Elite that life for them is business as usual. They have allowed a mechanism to be engineered by the banking system and global markets that turn our debt (national and personal) into wealth for them and their cronies. Of course, it brought us to our knees in 2007/08 and today we are back on the same horse.
If we pick up from 2007/8 the Elite have managed to save themselves and convince themselves, they have saved us but only by working the biggest confidence trick in modern history. They have turned the Westworld workers into a new class of twenty-first-century Serfs. We now pay taxes, service National and personal debt and spend what money we must ensure the Westworld economy looks like it is functioning when, like putting compressed air through a steam engine rather than steam, it just looks like it is working. This is a ‘Wizard of Oz’ illusion. The Emerald City of the Clintons, Blairs, EU and others involves workers giving away our good jobs, our productive capacity, plus amassing debt on an eye-watering scale to keep the elite in their positions of power and influence. They can use the banks and the Wests 18th century political systems and associated institutions to maintain their illusion and of course, they do.
Their wars of ‘reconstruction’ have burdened the working people with an additional problem. Migration. Not Migration from places with a cultural heritage of the Enlightenment and Contract, Choice and Consent but migration from places with a pre-capitalist feudal-like and simple worldview based on control, coercion and compulsion and for many this is linked to belief in the infallibility of the Quran and Hadith. The wars of reconstruction have failed, but the elite has it that migration has always been good at stimulating growth. Well yes and no. It depends on who is coming in. The Jewish community that came before and during World War two undoubtedly contributed a great deal to post War Britain’s economic reconstruction.
The Windrush generation added much socially and culturally but was probably less significant in economic terms and the most recent arrivals sadly seem to have added very little. Many have either taken low skilled work or some having pre-capitalist values of submission, have introduced a form of multi valueism in the West offering to compete with Western values. This has wrong-footed the Elite as previously their multiculturalism was set within a thriving capitalist framework and was the West’s expectation, not value systems competing within the Nation States themselves.
The lack of thriving capitalism is what has exposed the difference in values and made them so stark causing fear within all communities; established and newly arrived. The big debate is whether this has been a deliberate policy by the global elite to alter Western society. Our view is probably not. It’s just the consequence of everything we have described above and the Elite not knowing what to do about it.
One specific challenge to Western values comes in the requirement of Islam as a faith for men and women to be treated with differential standards and expectations. Something Karl Marx and Frederick Engels disapproved of, calling it Father “right”. This is linked to the control of women for essentially seventh-century economic reasons but is today presented as a twenty-first-century moral necessity. It seems to have become a political requirement adopted by many men and women within the Islamic faith and is being reflected widely in the wearing of hijab and less widely in the demand for Sharia law with all its seventh-century moral simplicity.
So how are the Elite managing this complex situation all of it of their rather than our making? They do not seem to have seen their folly and have not apologised to their own working people or the people of the bombed Middle East. They have not apologised to their Nation’s economically active and liberated women or the children abused in various ways in the name of ‘faith’, culture or both. They have not talked down the politics of seventh-century radical Islam by assertively promoting our values of contract, choice and consent. Instead, they have tried to manage opinion to prevent working people complaining too much and have compromised the future of generations of women by ignoring the flagrant hostility from some radicals towards some outspoken women. We need to assist any faith that theologically and doctrinally has no respect for individual rights and freedoms particularly those that empower women economically. There may be some people within the faith of Islam who do accept the principles of the Enlightenment, but when you research the Quran, Hadith and Islamic history it seems likely that out of fear they are a few brave souls indeed. So, what does the overall picture of the West look like?
- Societal and moral decline amplified within the context of declining economic power and influence
- An Elite who have developed exaggerated expectations of their own economic and political power
- Following the 2007/8 collapse, an economic ‘revival’ paid for by indebting working people and creating low paid jobs.
- Failed wars of reconstruction leading to mass migration
- A clash of ideologies between the enlightened West and a large migrant population from feudal systems often with pre-capitalist moral principles.
- An elite that having turned Westworld’s workers into serfs, (paying for the Elite’s power and wealth with debt and taxes) begins to roll back the values of the enlightenment and the principles of contract, choice and consent.
- An elite who realise their Nations can’t pay for the State bureaucracy and for them as well as pay for the consequences of their and our, Western moral decline.
So, what of the future? We all need to reflect on the challenges facing the Western world because the health of the West affects the health of the rest. We need to avoid the easy conclusion our political class and global Elite are there to sort it out. They really can’t because the West’s political systems are not set up to allow them to. Indeed, the experience of London under Khan and Trudeau in Canada confirms that things can be frighteningly unpredictable within our eighteenth-century political systems. With binary systems, ideology can flip into something unacceptable to ordinary people and flip on the outcome of one election, as with the knife crime epidemic in London. So, what conclusions can we draw?
Firstly, the Elites current economic strategy won’t work because you can’t borrow to spend and spend to borrow. The Westworld needs real social and economic value (business and profitability) and value is out there in the wider world, but the elite can’t conceive of how to get it, because it means bringing down trade barriers and giving more power to the people. Their failed strategy was to take up arms in the Middle East to get some added value that way and thankfully they no longer have the money or the inclination. They would rather spend what money they take from us on themselves, which is good news for the peace of the world in general.
Secondly, the Westworld worker is a global player with global values and can trade freely when given the freedom to do so. With ‘hot’ war largely a non-starter we all need to demand a system that allows us all to engage in sorting out Westworld’s problems. the Elite need to unshackle the power of the Western working people. Trade is the bringer of peace. It always has been, and we need to do more of it not less, so we need to empower the Western worker to go out into the world as in the 18th century and trade. The Elite need to ask us our opinion before deciding on a policy that affects us and not them!
Thirdly the Westworld worker is someone who believes in the enlightenment and the principles of contract, choice and consent and can easily identify those who don’t. Those who don’t consist of our Elite and those for whom discrimination against freedom and the promotion of control, coercion and compulsion are articles of faith including a growing number within our so-called ‘left wing’. Marx would have hated the West’s current ‘Left-wing’ made up as it is of too many narcissistic economic illiterates.
Fourthly we Westworld workers need to stop allowing the Elite and the ‘thick’ end of the left to differentiate us and turn us against one another based on bogus criteria like religion, sexuality or class. If we believe in western values, we should not support politicians who clearly don’t. Become radical, because after hundreds of years of exploitation we are one group of workers at last because we all share the same values even if we differ on policy detail. And we should remember it is our values that are at risk.
And finally, start to take the argument to the institutions that have landed us where we are today. Our 18th-century political system (not our enlightenment values), our mainstream media in the UK the BBC and Channel 4. The Church of England and all those Episcopal churches that seem to be handmaidens to any and every regressive faith going.
We should all shout about the importance of freedom and equality, identify those who don’t and humiliate them into silence. Over hundreds of years our values have made the world prosperous whilst most of the rest of the world was either to fractious or obsessed with doctrinal observance and submission. The Western world’s workers still have much to achieve in liberating ourselves and the workers of the world in general and we don’t want or need an elite to help us achieve it. Indeed, they ceased to be any help decades ago.
The values we in the western world now accept without question were born in the fierce heat of 18th Century Capitalism. They were described by Marx as bourgeois values. They were in addition to freedom from feudal oppression, the freedoms of Contract, Choice and Consent. There was of course unfairness which meant that unless you “made it” within this system you could not enjoy the full fruits and freedoms of bourgeois life. You might have had the right to contract, choose and consent but your life was defined by your wealth.
Of course whilst Capitalism, as a system was gender, religion and racially unprejudiced (anyone could become a Capitalist) society, discriminated mercilessly. So back in the 18th Century, bourgeois rights were essentially male rights and white male rights at that.
The intervening period up to today has seen the extension of these bourgeois rights to an ever-expanding population of people few of whom can actually call themselves “bourgeois”. Being bourgeois identifies your relationship to Capital, it isn’t about how much money you have but who created the wealth that you possess. If it was created by “exploited” workers you are a Capitalist in possession of Capital. If you are public sector Chief Exec on £300,000 you are not a capitalist just a very wealthy person paid out of the Nations Debt.
On this basis, therefore with the decline of “capitalism,” the “workers” have become more so than ever before a large unified group of people, women, men, people of all ethnicities and identities for whom the values of contract, choice and consent are an expectation of daily life. Only the confused on the left seem to regard removing or limiting these rights a legitimate policy objective. They would usher in a 16th-century policy of silencing dissent and showing prejudice against certain groups. For the vast majority of people, the challenge is to protect these bourgeois rights now we have acquired them and learn to use them to personal and social advantage without inflicting economic and social decay via a breakdown in social cohesion.
A breakdown in social cohesion is the major threat to western societies and there are many pretenders to the Wests throne offering various sorts of primitivism to compensate for the apparent breakdown of society arising from our new found freedoms. What these various groups of primitives fail to appreciate however is that whilst there will be some “adjustment” as we start to accept the full personal responsibility for the freedoms we have, we are all united in our desire not to have these freedoms compromised by politicians, religions or simply nasty unpleasant people.
British working people are in economic terms no longer differentiated by class and are largely an undifferentiated group who have fought hard to get the shared values we now enjoy. Now we must scan the horizon to establish who is trying to undermine us and our values of contract, choice and consent and deal with them robustly.