We at Blue Revolution direct this post to everyone who without modern rights would be subject to discrimination, basically everyone who is not a heterosexual male. This anthropological trope goes back to tribal times. Women had women’s roles and men there role. Homosexuality was a threat to the tribe in numerous ways so punishment for this “difference” was harsh. Adultery likewise. As humankind began to evolve via technologies like farming, maintenance of this primitive “status quo” became a challenge taken up by Leading men for example kings. Since our earliest times, there has been a tension between those demanding economic and social change and those attempting to preserve the status quo.
From biblical times to the late 16th Century little in the known world changed. What had always been wrong continued to be wrong. What needed to continue, continued. The wealth created by the economic activity from Bible times to the 16th century found its way into the hands of an elite. The gender discrimination first practised in tribal times was still found in what has become known as the feudal world. There was no impetus to change this because the world still needed this difference.
Gender difference, prohibitions against “choice” and “consent” and an absence of any “rights” not sanctioned by an overlord was a reality for everyone. However, for women, the first form of fascism was mans’ dominion over them and until comparatively recently all cultures accepted it.
Whilst the wars during this long millennial period were about territory and faith there was little difference in the defined role of the vanquished men and women. What we would describe today as discrimination flourished.
For everyone, men and women there was no Contract, Choice or Consent. This arrived in the late 17th early 18th century when things slowly start to change. Commerce needed the freedom to trade on agreed terms upheld by law and eventually, the old order yielded to new ways of doing the nation’s business. This development can’t be underestimated. Whilst the old tribal distinctions prevailed between men and women, in a legal sense these new principles of contract, choice and consent could in theory at least apply to women too. Man’s 10,000 year dominion over womenkind was for the first time weakened by the birth of capitalism. The history since the 18th century has been the history of an economic model, capitalism, delivering abundant wealth with associated inequality but paying for positive social change most often with a big poke from a progressive government.
The left would never admit to it but the rights and freedoms all minorities enjoy whether they are women, gay, queer or whatever, they enjoy because they are formed from economic rules that have over 200 years acquired a social character. Marx was the first to recognise this process. No one in the West seriously questions these social rights to contract freely, consent to what happens to you and to choose your lifestyle. However, they may be under threat, and not only because capitalism has morphed into a dark shadow self..the crony controlled “free market”.
Our ignorance of where our rights come from plus from the Left-wing an open and vitriolic hatred of capitalism and the free market threatens capitalisms enduring legacy of rights. It also threatens the existence of other benefits that accompany them such as our democratic freedoms of conscience and speech. The challenge is, of course, made more acute because capitalism as it was understood when it was forging our rights, no longer exists. It has been replaced by a crony “capitalist” free market economy which has seen employment exported east and low paid workers coming west. There are legitimate reasons to dislike the free market but abolishing economic freedom and replacing it with government ownership will not protect rights. As in the 1970’s it will turn workers against taxpayers!
This newly emboldened orthodox Left wing in the UK is starting to erode freedom of conscience and speech within the Labour Party. This arises because they don’t understand why legal principles like contract, choice and consent are essential to maintaining a fair and free society for everyone. Look at countries that have not socialised these economic freedoms and you still find discrimination ie certain parts of Africa. Look at countries who have never had to accept these principles and you have a tyranny ie Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.
If you have state involvement in the economy as we have today it is important that the economy is as free as possible. The importance of economic freedom in legitimising and maintaining social freedoms can’t be underestimated protecting things like gender rights is a function of a free society based on a free economy.
The orthodox Left has failed to grasp that whilst economic freedom is bourgeois it must be maintained as it underpins all anti-discrimination policy. This is because people essentially workers or consumers and are therefore able to exercise the same rights whoever they are. The Left’s failure to grasp this makes them fellow travellers with those who oppress others and makes them, and those who support them, a potential threat to our free safe society where everyone now has the same slate of rights.
If the Left pursue their 19th-century agenda they will succeed only in throwing the equality baby out with the bourgeois bath water!
Sadly the world is a bit of a mess. Yes people are getting rich and some people are getting jobs but the elephant in the room is that too many of those jobs are based directly or indirectly on debt and too few people are the recipients of the debt once it has been transformed into income by the state or banking system, so only a few, including politicians get rich.
Bonuses to house builders, EU bureaucrats Vice Chancellors of British Universities and state employees on over £100K per year all have a stake in taxpayer-funded debt. QE and the issuing of government Bonds assist the profitability of the banking system. No one is going to challenge the status quo when the status quo, the taxpayer-funded global debt model, is so lucrative to our “elite”.
What is called “capitalism” today owes more to debt than capital (capital is economic value stolen from workers by capitalist’s, getting workers into debt to pay “capitalists” is not capitalism) but the elite doesn’t want anyone to know that.
Without the West’s governments taking tax from and thus indebting the poor taxpayer for centuries the system would have collapsed about a decade ago. The 2007/8 banking crisis was the most recent iteration of capitalisms terminal illness. Others collapses have been prevented by war or re-engineering the system as happened in the 1980’s.
The problem is that when the 1980’s collapse began the world was global so the Elite could export expensive work to China making the maximum profit from low production costs and stable sale prices at home. As prices stayed stable so inflation was stable but work was becoming a low skill and low pay issue so families needed subsidy and that comes from taxpayers too. So the bottom end of the economy is being subsidised and the elite’s and bankers are being continually bailed out as well.
Initially, in 07/08 the bankers had to be bailed out…the systems death throes would have had a devastating social as well as catastrophic economic impact so immediate collapse had to be avoided. However rather than have a revolutionary overhaul of the whole system and staunch the excessive wealth and waste inherent within the elite’s crony economy, the state not only stepped in to stop the collapse, it continues to subsidize the whole “capitalist” system (banking, State and consumption). There is no one who is going to come forward to change this unless a quiet ballot based revolution takes place and those who can live on a realistic wage start to re-engineer the whole system for the benefit of everyone. Corbyns tax and spend is grist to the mill for the global elite and Farage’s sucking up to the EU shows just how far the global elite will go to consolidate their advantage over the rest of us.
Blue Revolution is a quiet revolution, it’s a means by which ordinary people can get in on the political act by not having to go through the ideological indoctrination of the party system. The ballot really is the most power you have ever had let’s use our votes to make sure we help our Nation of workers survive our State by becoming Blue Revolutionaries.
Just like the four horsemen of the Apocalypse bring war, famine, conquest and death so we believe that there are now four markets of the apocalypse that will signal the end of the West’s global preeminence and with that usher in an era of well, famine, war conquest and death! Many will argue that the “global system” has created wealth in abundance and staved off starvation and numerous other miseries. However, we have wars raging in the Middle East and in the west, the poor are getting poorer and being blamed for it. So we will explore our four markets of the apocalypse and how they contribute to the world’s misery and death. They are in order of significance, for us they are, the global labour market, Bond markets, The financial market, and the housing market.
The working classes have forever been victims of a failing system. From peasants locked into servitude then thrown into urban factories in the 18th and 19th centuries to the workers who, thrown into unemployment were salvaged from destitution by two world wars. More recently the stupifying horror of “healthcare and welfare” as capitalism gave way to the racketeering of the “free market”. What underpins all of these scenarios is labour market failure. However whilst the more obvious iterations of labour market failure are easy to see, we have sleepwalked through the most recent failure believing all is Ok.
It all began in the late 1970’s when capitalism finally got to the point where it was producing too little value to support the social and political institutions it had supported since the 18th century. Institutions like the law, politics and local government, health and welfare. Capitalism was on the ropes and whether by intention or accident the labour market was seen as a major cause of the failure. The solution was overseen by passive and ignorant political class who watched firstly the shift of higher value production to China and the re-emergence of the western economy as a “consumer” economy and finally the remaining “onshore” low-value work taken by migrants from Mexico or Eastern Europe. An economy that consumes but does not produce value isn’t an economy at all…unless it’s a kind of Alice in Wonderland economy.
The combined effects of this crazy business model has been to turn UK workers into welfare and healthcare “paupers” unwanted by the global labour market but growing fat and docile at the State’s or rather taxpayers expense. In the US the businessmen and women get rich whilst the poor are not pauperised but ghettoised and become that useful social commodity a criminal. In the UK many unemployed are hidden by a therapeutic language of “needs” and inadequacy taking them out of the labour market altogether.
People, of course, do work but most private sector workers are in the “consumer” economy as shop, restaurant and hotel workers or the building industry. These workers rely on the other failing markets the housing, financial and Bond market to boost the economy in their sector, largely via debt.
The labour market has rendered British an US workers unemployable, created a docile underclass of ex-industrial and agricultural workers and their second and third generation offspring, whilst low production costs and “western” production values have made retail billionaires out of a whole unlovable bevvy of spivs and chancers. All this whilst the politicians have stood around in a kind of baffled paralysis and simply watched. In the US and the UK no one really “gets it” apart from the people getting rich from this crazy economic and social model. It makes publicly funded “chiefs” wealthy beyond their dreams, along with a whole swathe of what we call the publicsectoracy or the new taxpayer-funded elite. The workers currently have zombie jobs and low pay. Eventually with no jobs and no pay who knows what will happen.
The modern labour market has failed and is failing every time someone goes to work in the west and is paid with the proceeds of debt. When it finally crashes (because of the failure of our other markets) the crisis will render most westerners economically redundant with little economic or social value. This will usher in a feudal-like system run by the caring right and the psychotic left. Back to the future indeed.
Whilst the labour market has failed in response to the latest iteration of the failure of western capitalism, governments or rather the State had to undertake business as usual and that meant paying themselves and their retinue wages initially set at the benchmark of what the capitalist or bourgeois system would tolerate. Now, however, shorn of the need to concern themselves with actual money taken from rich bourgeois taxpayers who had political clout the state borrows by issuing Bonds and defers the cost of running the State to the next generation. The baby boomers are really looking after themselves as only the 1960’s and 1970’s entitled generation know how to. Corbyn and a youthquake….get real! He is looking after the boomers first and foremost.
The problem with Bonds, like much else we call economics, is that they are debt and debt isn’t repaid or serviced by the state but by taxpayers and taxpayers who are in the long-term often not even born when the Bond is issued. Just as the working classes were sailed down the river by the politicians’ stewardship of the labour market the same is now going on with Bonds. A brief history of the Bond illustrates the point. Bonds were first issued in the 18th century to pay for military excursions and wars. In normal times the economy paid for the State but to prosecute war the State borrowed from the economy. Today the State buys breakfast with Bonds…..and that is good for no one and certainly not the working classes who, already on the road to pauperdom, will be paying for the State elite’s breakfasts for years to come. This market will fail, interest rates and inflation will once normal economics returns turn British and US Bonds into junk. The State won’t be able to borrow. How will the elite cope….? At the expense of the unemployed workers, of course. Ex-workers newly pauperised and docile, obsessed with identity and social media the new elite will simply take control. “fake news” is part of that process, it makes people trust their elite and not trust themselves.
The financial market is interesting. Back in the days of proper (albeit conflicted and exploitative) capitalism, the financial markets served the capitalist economy…Bankers were to coin a phrase petit bourgeois. The bankers served the interests of “capital”, capital owned by “capitalists”. The growth in the economy was driven by the profitability of the capitalist system, banking and the other bourgeois institutions like the law and parliament served the needs of the capitalist. However, we have explained that capitalism has failed having died sometime in the 1970’s and in its death throes it was unable to meet the demands of the State that had become bloated on it’s back. This was one of those threshold moments when international relations deteriorate, groups are blamed for the systems failure and wars start. Unfortunately, in spite of Bush and Blairs attempt to open up a lucrative war or two in the Middle East, war is seen as too costly, counterproductive and more significantly expensive. Bonds are no longer issued for paying for war but welfare, healthcare and wages.
In the absence of a real economy after the 1980’s creating value from the combining of factors of production (Land, Labour and Capital) and with capitalism dead in the western waters and wars and reconstruction no longer an option there was an ideological hiatus. What was going to happen?….well what happened is what is happening now!
The financial sector….for to hundred years the Aunt Sally of the real capitalist system became the “economic system”, in the newly minted and newly branded free market. With the opportunity to offshore work to places like China and bring migrants in to do low-value jobs at home, low production costs and high production values created huge profits for the racketeers, whilst the drive towards home ownership shifted public value into the hands of the private individual who could then borrow secured loans as their asset, their home, rose in value. This was driven by more borrowing, migration, artificial demand from broken homes and students.
The financial sector has essentially “equity released” Great Britain to indebted Britons or wealthy global speculators. Whilst the banking system has many tentacles, for us the most lucrative is the property backed lending spree that has kept the low-cost high-profit free market going. The whole thing is fine until the asset values plunge and consumption or spending power shrinks. This will happen, it happened in 2007/8 and nothing has changed except governments are now even more indebted and technically bankrupt than they were after 2007/8.
The final market which as we have hinted at above feeds the financial market with “value” is the housing market. This market is unreconstructed and depends on the levels of supply being outstripped by levels of demand. Levels of demand are manipulated by a number of factors including selling the homeownership ideal but at a more practical level migration, divorce and family reconstruction, as well as student rentals all, add to demand. This demand inflates prices whilst builders “Feed in” just enough property so as to ensure gentle inflation in the market creating “lending and borrowing opportunities” for the financial sector. This model of housing ignores some obvious flaws namely that housing should serve the needs of the economy, it can’t be a major part of the economy by providing the “value” base for secured lending.
Modern housing does not reflect the needs of the modern worker, it is based on the 1950’s mythical nuclear family. A home that has two or three bedrooms and costs £200,000 is not achievable nor for many modern workers desirable. The modern worker should be global, childless until a child is affordable, flexible and have accommodation which does not soak up a huge amount of earnings.The modern housing market is a Baby Boomer confection that is manipulated and engineered to produce monetary value to support the “free market”, the building industry and its CEO’s and the government.
To keep this important market going we need to inflate property prices, build on greenfield sites break up families and keep students and migrants driving people out of the town and city centres to the new out of town estates. This market will collapse and will take the financial market with it.
The four markets of the apocalypse are either failed but “zombied” like the labour or Bond markets or they are the great hope of the system but overvalued and indebted with high asset values feeding the consumer based economy. Looking at all four markets it is difficult to work out what to do. It’s like being in quicksand. don’t move or do move…..you are still going to drown!
I am so fed up with those ghastly crew in Brussels and how our government seems to be grovelling to please them and do just as they demand that I have written a couple of times to my MP (I voted for her in the General Election as my UK voting address is Horncastle.
Here’s my first letter
Dear Victoria Atkins MP,
Although I currently live in France, you are the MP I voted for at the last general election as my last UK address was in Horncastle.
I voted for BREXIT as I felt/feel that British citizens should have an elected government, not an unelected one based in Brussels.
In France if you want a job done and the cost exceeds EU150.00, the service provider must, by law, provide a ‘devis’ in advance, setting out the labour and parts cost, thus one knows the final cost before entering into a contract (by signing the devis).
With the proposed settlement of the EU demands on the UK for an exit fee of (currently) £40-50 BILLION, does the British government have a breakdown of costs, or is this just an amount that the EU thinks would be a happy amount?
And what are we getting for that amount? What is the contract associated with this huge amount?
If we just go for a ‘no deal’ would that cost more than £40-50 BILLION?I would appreciate an answer to these questions from Mr Davies.
Oot of sheer frustration a second letter!!
Dear Victoria Atkins MP
I have written previously on the subject of BREXIT, with questions stated as being forwarded to David Davies (no response as yet).
I am writing from France but my postal vote in the General Election was for you as my last UK address was in Horncastle, I voted for BREXIT in the referendum.
I want to express through you the utter anger and frustration at the way our government is approaching the mandarins of Brussels, making through-the-night trips to beg indulgence and bowing and scraping, metaphorically speaking, in the face of every demand, in order to gain – what? Just to continue talking? This is not only amazing but it is humiliating and degrading.
The EU personnel in Brussels are not army generals with a fearsome army at our walls, they are a bunch of self elected civilians with delusions of grandeur and power.
Mrs May is not a night nurse to hurry along and dress the wounded pride of these upstarts. If Brussels wants a deal, let them come to us, we can well manage without one, our friendly European neighbours want and need to deal with the UK more than the other way around.
There’s so much prancing around to the tune of Brussels, when are we going to start behaving in a dignified way?
Just like the four horsemen of the Apocalypse bring war, famine, conquest and death so we believe that there are now four markets of the apocalypse that will signal the end of the Wests global preeminence and with that usher in an era of well, famine, war conquest and death! Many will argue that the “Global system” has created wealth in abundance and staved off starvation and numerous other miseries. However, we have wars raging in the Middle East and in the west, the poor are getting poorer and being blamed for it. So we will explore our four markets of the apocalypse and how they contribute to the worlds misery and death. They are in order of significance the global labour market, Bond markets, The financial market, and the housing market.
Hmmmmmmmm. It is certainly true that young people admire Corbyn. It has much to do with his claim to take their student debt and pay it off. Unfortunately, like all Socialists, he fails to explain that paying it off means putting it on the state’s books thus burdening the Millenials and those who come after them i.e. generation economic Armageddon with debt’s that will have to be paid off after the last “boomers” have been dead for decades. A friend of the Millennials? We don’t think so! The state will simply continue to undermine the Nation something it is getting better and better at!
Most ordinary people have had a sufficient raising of their consciousness not to be too concerned or indeed perplexed by an individuals desire to “transition”. As most ordinary people consider it to be a matter for the individual. Push them a little harder and they will possibly say it is not a matter for the taxpayer. However, the bourgeois rights to contract, choose and consent in reality means that this like so much else in a civilised community is down to the individual concerned. It doesn’t require any further analysis.
Oh but wait…the intellectual left feel the urge to promote the issue to the point where their opinions start to reveal the rather unpleasant underbelly of their prejudice, a kind of “left-wing shadow self”. How so? Well, a young person transitioning from male to female called Lilly wanted to be included in “woman of the year”. There was a lot of unpleasant “trolling” before the “intellectual” left came along in support of the position Lilly had adopted that “a trans woman is still a woman”. Well, sadly this position is insulting to women, in the same way, that a white person “appropriating” Black culture and changing their skin colour, is insulting to black people.
By adopting the position they have, the “intellectual” left have shown themselves again to be misogynistic in that they are happily demeaning the experience of being a woman in what is the hostile and unfemale-friendly culture of the 21st century. From Saidi Arabia to London and New York women are indexed, categorised and preyed upon, abused, executed and murdered based on gender plus class; looks and desirability; race, status and lifestyle. No transitioning male to female can “appropriate” that negative experience of being born a woman and to deny the relevance of that life experience when it is so significant. It is as we have said an insult to women the world over.
So what is the answer? Well it is quite simple really we either have to get rid of gender and all “characteristics” so anyone can be anything, a woman can try for “man of the year” and vice versa, or we simply stick to gender as like race having “cultural status” and discourage or prevent inappropriate “cultural appropriation”. Mind you we could simply start a “Trans man or woman of the year” award and get over the whole issue and move on!.
In the western world, we have a problem. What we love is destroying us and the planet. We no longer love each other we can only see each other as “opportunities” or “opportunity costs” essentially economic terms that have nothing to do with love and we see the same in everything else too.
This has happened because our real love is consumption of the world’s resources and to some extent consumption of each other. In the post-industrial West, we have to borrow to sustain our consumption. The incompetent activities of governments and banks since the 1970’s and governments in the UK specifically since the 1960’s have fuelled a regrettable debt binge to fuel consumption and maintain “jobs” and the domestic economic system.
Ignoring the complex world of gold standards and financial regulation, we will concentrate on the bigger picture for the benefit of the less economically inclined.
First some context. By the 1960/70’s it was clear that in “capitalist” countries the inherent “contradictions of capitalism”, (basically it over produces goods and undermines both the value of them and the ability to pay living wages to make them or buy them) were leading to poverty and crime. New “industries” like illegal drugs, porn and prostitution started to replace the traditional industries that were the envy of the world only twenty years earlier. This was the case on both sides of the Atlantic. Of course, governments could employ people; in the forces say but this was paid for out of tax from a declining tax base. The western world was getting poorer, it was a crisis and it was the Cold War… Cripes! There had to be a way to re-engineer the system so it could pay for itself again.
There was no way an economy built on taxing profit and increasing levels of income could adapt to this crisis….essentially it was existential. The only possible solution for governments back then was to introduce public ownership of industries, but the 1940’s British experiment was clearly a failure due to “industrial hierarchy” (more of this later) continuing to alienate workers even when in theory they “owned the means of production”.
In the US there was no appetite to go down the “socialist” UK model. Jobs were being exported (a process that sped up over the next two decades)and communities were thrown onto the dole or as we call it “the global labour market” but takers for their expensive labour there came none. The careful balancing of the state’s books became difficult as the tax base shrank and the welfare burden increased. Bruce Springsteen made a career out of singing about these “global unemployed” and Ronald Regan couldn’t balance a budget!
In the UK whether by accident or design Margaret Thatcher adopted “Thatcherism” a combination of free-market economics and fiscal conservatism. Just as no one could fathom out, back in the day, why Regan made such as a hash of his last budget no one could work out the success of Thatcherism. Factories, mines and shipyards closed but still, the economy carried on apparently “growing”. In the US after Regan, Bush then Clinton reaped the “rewards” of the same phenomenon.
Back in the UK selling Council homes in deprived areas opened up new avenues for “business” in the finance sector and coincidentally as the North Eastern mines, steel plants and shipyards closed so the Malls sprang up. They sold everything from lingerie to furniture now almost all made in China at very low unit cost but sold at prices comparable to British produced products. Profit margins were healthy for stores “commissioning” these products.
Foreign production costs, borrowing against inflating property prices, including discounted ex-council stock, stocks and shares, and the payment of state salaries and investment with “regeneration budgets” (building new housing and Malls) kept the whole economic show on the road and has done for decades. The whole thing was allowed to simmer rather than boil with Private Finance Initiatives and other means of embedding taxpayers money into the profit margins of corporations no longer able to cut it on the world stage without reliance on the state. To cut costs Governments acting as always in the interests of the “State” rather than the “Nation” swooned into the arms of the financial racketeers. John McDonnell promises the same solution again on an even grander scale to pay for renationalisation.
Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron were all symbols of this model which was presented by crony economists and bankers, the City or Wall Street as an anti boom and bust perpetual money machine. However, it could never be that. Only deluded politicians like Blair and Cameron in the UK or Clinton in the US thought this was their passport to immortality. Everyone else from 2003 onwards…us included, held our breath waiting for the collapse. Eventually, it came in 2007/2008.
The only solution was to bail out the banks. Other fanciful options could not have worked as the banking sector was central to the whole national ecosystem. If the banks failed in their death throws they would have consumed not only the economy but society as well. So like the six foot tall 20 stone teenage son they had to be indulged with bail out’s and a mass of Quantitative Easing. In an open world, this has done little to rebuild real economies but it has made bankers and asset owners very rich. An unintended consequence? Perhaps less “unintended” than we might think.
So working on this analysis having some passable link to the actualete’, western “capitalism” ended in the mid-1980’s when China provided the worlds proletarians to produce cheap goods for a greedy western free market. The west became a free market of racketeers and chancers buoyed up on its own arrogance and incapable of seeing that it’s so-called “wealth” was simply debt based or tax derived, of little or no actual “value”. But for those to whom it flowed it has made life very agreeable whilst making governments fearful of their electorate and the electorate smelling a rat somewhere hostile to their governments.
Now we referred to “industrial hierarchy” above when talking about Nationalisations in the past. Nothing better illustrates the problem of the “State” now, than the phrase “Industrial Hierarchy”. The State is not the Nation and some parts of the state work better than others, for example, the Constitutional Monarchy works well in the UK. The UK Parliament itself, however, is a shocking bourgeois throwback to the 18th Century which is no longer capable of delivering long-term prosperity for the Nation but being “in charge” is unlikely to concede to any reform.
Hierarchy is a means of running a complex system and when you have few “leaders” it works comparatively well albeit always biased in favour of the “leadership”. When Capitalism replaced the old feudal system it was simply replacing a “there by right” for a “thereby effort or luck”. It created opportunities for the able business person to get rich and the whole “feudal establishment” yielded to the new bourgeois power base.
The feudal establishment and institutions could yield because capitalism was a hierarchy. There was a “natural fit”.
So why is this a problem today? Well, today we don’t have a capitalist West we have a bankrupt free market. In the west we still have people schooled and socialised to believe they have a natural right to a high public office or large amounts of wealth, however, acquired.
Our free market is based on mass consumption, not mass production and this consumption is paid for as we have said by tax, asset inflation and debt. Basically, we are no longer being “exploited” in the Marxist sense but to keep our hierarchical legal, political and every other public body in existence (Housing, Health, Education, military etc) with their 100K plus Barrons at the top (we call them the pubicsectocracy) we the people are being alienated into borrowing and allowing our governments to borrow trillions of Pounds or Dollars.
The western economic system is the most immoral in history and it is destroying the planet and itself.
The problem for the West is two-fold. By saving the banks and not having a long-term contingency to avoid the same problem again we are back on the banker’s money go round and we await the next and probably final cataclysmic failure. What will that usher in? Well, the end of democracy for a start.
Secondly our binary Parliamentary and two-party system and 5-year cycle democracy (4 in the US) make real democracy and sustainable economic stability impossible. This is why all political parties turn to the short-termism of financial engineering. It is impossible to save ourselves with this model which can only ever favour the banks and commercial interests and not the Nation as a whole.
Banks are vital to the health of the nation but today it is only ever the banks to the rescue of the state (even for the Labour party) and that’s bad for the Nation.
The solution is a Blue Revolution. Ordinary people shaping policy with more democracy not less. Long-term (30 years) planning by ending binary Parliamentary politics and the Party System, not by force but by voting for unaligned candidates. There needs to be a complete overhaul of what the state can and should do and a review of how it does it moving rapidly from an industrial model of service delivery to a “social model” where individual practitioners are interdependent and self-regulating, not top-down managed! and how much the state should pay “its” state people in wages and terms and conditions is also important in a post hierarchy age. This is because state workers are paid out of what are essentially the debts or taxes of the nation …….errrrr that it!
John McDonnell was asked this question and seems to have had difficulty answering it. Leading to the obvious conclusion that of course, he is a Marxist….shock horror to all right-thinking people. He probably sees himself as a Marxist, a man with a scientific insight into the fundamentals of the misfiring capitalist economy. Except for err…he really isn’t.
John and the assorted collection of shhhhhhhh “Marxists” in the ranks of the Labour party are not Marxists at all. They are socialists and not only that their confused “messaging” reveals that they are not really democratic “socialists” but nasty trolling socialists who would like to use the bourgeois state to take control of the economy and that includes its workers and of course silence dissent. Real Modern Marxists would accept as Marx would have, the bourgeois values of freedom of speech, of conscience, of lifestyle, of contract, choice and consent but reject the bourgeois state which crystalised exploitation and the exclusion of workers from decisions about the economy.
When has the state really represented the workers and promoted worker involvement? Whether it is the 1970’s and the state on behalf of the workers was “running” industries like rail or coal mining or the 1920’s with Lenin’s Russian state “running” industries on behalf of workers, workers never feel particularly empowered.
So our “Marxists” as they unashamedly promote, simply want to run the economy under public ownership as though they owned it. This is the tried and tested model of failure we have seen for nearly a century. Our “Marxists” are simply public ownership socialists who tax and spend using debt. Not fully grown up Marxists. Our observations, however, beg a very important question, If McDonnell et al are not Marxists, who is?
Well, we are nearer to it than any socialist can ever be. We believe in redistribution of wealth but unlike “Marxist” McDonnell we don’t count debt or it’s derivatives in the form of free market profitability as wealth. We don’t see the state as being anything other than a burden on workers who have to pay tax to pay for inefficient waste and an army of bureaucrats meddling in the economy. We believe in worker involvement in the economy and society via a wide legislative structure and not the 18th-century party system. For an example of what a modern democratic Marxist might believe, and we are not being big headed here, please read our manifesto.
Going on twitter is an absolute eye-opener onto the state of the current political and economic narrative being peddled by left and right alike. We want to scream “a plague on all your (political) houses”. But where to start? As we registered on 19th November 2017 we have only a few twitter followers. So we have to “tweet” comment to an interesting array of the self-appointed twitterocracy who whether left or right singularly miss the people’s point that the system is at best rigged and at worst broken. So with the brevity of Twitter lets pick up two or three big-ticket issues missed by the left and right and comment.
Number one on the left wing is the nieve belief that the economy dependent as it is on debt can fund an even more active and interventionist state. They all queue up to extoll the merits of their version of Marxism singularly failing to grasp that Marx’s proletariat was creating social and economic value which was brought into existence by the capitalist’s production methods and is then misappropriated by the capitalist. The state then takes this value back on behalf of the worker. So far so 19th century. Today the economy relies on debt to provide the services people expect, but the state top slices tax income and uses debt to ensure it can pay for itself. Nice work if you can get it.
Now the right. Margaret Thatcher oversaw what in the 1980’s was a radical policy of selling council homes. This was and still is seen as a way of nurturing Tory voters. However, this “revolution” was tied in with relaxing the financial sector and the slow remorseless shift of work away from Britain to China and countries that paid a “world” wage level as opposed to an “unaffordable” western one. What happened was that we in the west stopped making stuff and began consuming cheap stuff made in China. The old industrial-scale manufacturing and extractive economies in the west became a “marketing and sales” economy and this has, in turn, become a kind of economic “bandit country”. Now making money, not creating value is the “supply side” and the “demand side” is consumption paid for with debt both government and private much of it backed by house price value. Thatcher wasn’t to blame she couldn’t join the dots up, but the bankers could and still are
Finally, the context of this mess is the canvass upon which politicians try to represent the people. On the left, the solution is government jobs and more debt welfare and healthcare without a thought about final economic collapse. On the right, it is to treat the unemployable victims of the world labour market as failures and to manage the decline of their communities whilst finding ways of passing the cost of the whole sorry mess onto the people, via low wage employment, student debt, and adult social care costs paid from the estate of the deceased, oh and more debt but not as much as under Labour.
With both parties so spectacularly missing the point about the true nature of the British economy the only conclusion we can come to is OMG!!.