There was a time when to use a Marxist phrase politics was a petit-bourgeois activity. The players were like bankers and lawyers mere flunkies of the capitalist. At that time the political system was set up to efficiently manage the capitalist economy and ensure the competing needs of the big players, the landowners and men of capital, could have their differences reconciled without taking up arms. The whole process worked so well that by the 1750’s the British Empire spanned the globe bringing trade that would eventually liberate people from poverty and disease.
The 17th and 18th centuries were the period when a free people and a free capitalist class drove up economic value in such vast amounts that London was so wealthy it became a city of expensive architectural marvels. The Law Courts in London, the Naval HQ at Greenwich from where the Empire was policed and the end of slavery enforced, and of course Parliament itself. The Capitalist political model was adopted elsewhere in the world, notably the UAS signifying the success of the Bourgeois revolution…..or as it is known in Britain the “Glorious Revolution”.
Politicians were there to promote and protect this capitalist model and secure its future. The Monarch has by this time acquired a purely symbolic function and has discharged this role competently right up to the present day. And long may that part of the State continue. It is the least problematic part of the British State by a country mile.
The problem is that the capitalist model is now defunct! Lets stop there and think about that. How is the capitalist system defunct? Well to be capitalist, capitalism has to produce economic value by combining things like land and labour thus creating Goods and resources that can be traded for money. This money builds up as wealth. This wealth enables the rich to pay taxes and the state to function in the interests of the economic players the Capitalist and Landowners, and by the 20th century the workers too. If we accept this definition of capitalism, capitalism has had its heyday and has been replaced by the debt dependent “free market”.
The free market was an important element of the Capitalist system. Based on Contract, Choice and Consent it allowed “trade” to flourish. However without the economic underbelly of “capitalism” it has spawned a virulent form of immoral consumerism driven by debt. This consumerism is unsustainable, planet destroying and will eventually, like capitalism itself fail spectacularly. When this happens, and unless we prepare for a properly democratic “managed decline” involving ordinary people making decisions about their future, we are likely to lose the elements of Contract, Choice and Consent that were the kingpin of the last three hundred years of trade, freedom and democracy and find ourselves governed by an indifferent elite. Worse than now trust us!
So how do our modern western politicians fit into this doomsday scenario? Well as we said at the beginning they were originally there to promote the interests of the bourgeois economy and that bourgeois economy paid for the state and therefore paid them and those who administered the State.
Now of course the State pays for them with no bourgeois economy paying for the state. The State pays for almost everything else too. To meet its obligations the State relies on debt.
With the State indebting us up to our ears and ordinary taxpayers indebted up to their ears too, paying taxes on a salary that relatively speaking would have been too low to tax by 18th century standards, we are all paying hand over fist to keep a political, public sector and “free market elite” in well remunerated work but for no discernible reason. Frankly the old the young the taxpayer the planet and the indebted can no longer afford to support this outdated system.
Blue Revolution says “move over State elite and let the people take over, it’s our country and it’s our planet”.
The Autumn of discontent is a worthy enterprise for well intentioned students who having a youthful belief in the benign intentions of the State want to “take the fight to the politicians” in the hope that politicians are part of the solution.
In reality of course machine politicians are the problem. Serried ranks of party hacks all having one eye on their careers and the other eye on the opposition party’s activities, whilst the rest of us are ignored or “managed” to ensure the various right and left vested interests are protected and promoted. It is easy to see why people can be beguiled by politicians, and their parties, because the only way onto politics is via one. But being part of a party requires a certain amount of abandoning of principles and promoting “groups” who are sympathetic with the party in question.
Students are a case in point. Student debt keeps the left wing educational establishment in work whilst transferring wealth from poor families to universities either as government debt (paid for out of taxation) or student loans. Other examples are the future pauperisation of the future young via payments for elderly care out of the elderly’s current wealth. How long before the State decides that in addition to covering elderly care out of inheritable wealth student loans can be paid out of actual inherited wealth. The State and its new industries like elderly care, education, child welfare, domestic abuse and crime all need paying for and tax can and will only go so far.
Young people should realise that socialists just want to turn the state into the Nation’s employer of choice for well…. left wing intellectual people who have no connection with the real working class. The bill of course is picked up by the poor old workers. The Conservatives want to do the right thing but in a system that can’t and has rarely ever delivered the “right thing”. They will and currently are doomed to fail. Corbyn is right about that.
We offer this warning to the young and old alike; just remember that your interests and the interests of the planet are not aligned with the interests of the State. The State is an 18th century institution designed to prevent civil war and to manage opposition using a crude binary model of government and opposition. In the two or three hundred years it has existed in its modern form it has done well to promote vested interests on left and right. Those interests are no more about ordinary people’s interests now than they have ever have been before.
Socialism and Corbyn’s “left” are as much part of the State as they are unashamedly about “the Labour Party”and its 1840’s values. They are “socialists”. Socialism is not about liberating the people it is about the party, and delivering the Party’s programme.
Only Blue revolution wants to bring together ordinary people in a new politics for the 21st century and re build Britain from the neighbourhood up! Not Parliament down.
Well it’s not feudalism? What do you call it when the ordinary tax-payer subsidizes labour? well it isn’t socialism? So what is it called when the ordinary taxpayer subsidizes capital? Well its not capitalism and it is probably the biggest rip off in world history. The land, the poor and the planet, are having to pay the price!! We need a planet saving, freedom promoting and capital preserving Blue Revolution!
This issue of the relationship between society and its means of production is elemental to our understanding how and why the world is as it is today and the likely success of the competing ideologies that are starting to wrestle for influence or supremacy in a world made fluid by the end, through bankruptcy, of the anglo/US two hundred year old trading hegemony.
How does it work? Well Feudalism is the theft of land value by an elite. The system has some legitimacy because only the elite are capable of maintaining order and thus making this economic model work. However once the land is subsidised by government it marks the end of land related authority. Should the land be subsidized? probably not! But neither should it simply be monetised by house building. This turns land value into cash for the few and not for the pleasure of the many.
Beyond land based economic models we move to Capitalism and its massive productive output. Workers paid wages to enable them to create economic value for the capitalists. The Capitalists have supremacy. The State and the wage bill is paid by them but they still get a good return and political power. Socialism by contrast takes much of the Capitalists value and turns it into state expenditure. Subsidizing labour to the tune of health, welfare and pensions expenditure. Note it is the Capitalist who is paying the bill for welfare on the whole, either directly or via the taxation levied on their workers.
Finally the end of this civilised model comes when capitalism can’t support the state or the States “socialist” aspirations and also can’t support itself as an economic system (i930’s then 1980’s and 2007/8 and finally 20??). At that point the Capitalist system is essentially dead and needs putting down but that could lead to social chaos. So the elite seizing an opportunity to make money put it on life support. That life support is a regime of taxpayer funded government and personal debt. The capitalist system is now no more than a valueless free market lantern show of of some of capitalism’s past glories such as “profit”. “Profit” is used to justify wealth for those who consider their wealth to be “legitimately” earned. There is no “legitimate” wealth in this system as the system produces no real value based wealth just debt.
The problem as we at Blue Revolution continually argue, is that the values (contract, choice and consent) that two hundred years ago transformed feudalism into capitalism and the values that transformed capitalism into socialism in Britain (health, and welfare), will likely disappear when the final embers of the unsustainable free market go cold. Then what?
Look around the world and you see nations engaging in a kind of verbal warfare. Better of course than actual warfare but pointless and limiting. The problem is or so it seems to us, too many countries fail to understand their shared value base. They, for one reason or another, prefer to obsess about difference rather than what is similar or familiar. The reason is probably because they came to where they are via different routes.
Just as you can “hack” across the English countryside to get to Sheffield, you can also take the motorway. Both journeys end up at the same place but the experience of getting there will be very different. So like Russia and the West we have arrived at a 21st century socioeconomic system that is broadly the same; Debt based and consumer driven. This is currently where all western type nations stand. Nations who have, by dint of capitalist exploitation or exploitation by the industrialised state, got to a point where working people have acquired a level of freedom which is different from cultures which are for other reasons locked into a mediaeval “dark ages”. North Korea, Saudi Arabia and most of the Middle East, are feudal systems propped up by wealth controlled by a state elite who ruthlessly control power. No good being an outspoken soldier in North Korea or an outspoken woman is Saudi. This would be too much for the “state”. Death would await.
The perversity of why the West is as it is, is to us quite simple. Before you can equalise people (moving away from gender or race based discrimination for example) you have to prolatarianise them. It is the process of prolatarianisation, be it private capitalist or state capitalist systems like Russia, which drives the demand for equality. Industrialisation simply needs workers, not male workers or female workers, black workers or white workers but workers! Eventually Gay workers etc. Countries that have not industrialised and have not therefore prolatarianised cannot deliver freedom and equality. It simply isn’t in the cultural vocabulary for them to do so. So invariably you end up with a North Korea or Saudi Arabia, Myanmar or wherever. It is just the way it is. Look at a woman in a Burka and you don’t see a person defined by her work you see a woman defined by her gender. Scary stuff if you are a woman on the left wing of politics!
Now this reflects a problem for the West in that we no longer have a “capitalist” system, reinforcing capitalist principles of contract, choice and consent.
Capitalism, before it morphed into the ghastly debt based “free market”, had spawned one very significant but ignorant and ungrateful offspring, namely socialism. Socialists don’t seem to see that the wealth spent by socialist governments came from capitalism, wealth they spent on welfare systems and social reform.
Socialists somehow think that this bounteous wealth came from the actions of socialist governments alone and not from the actions of industry and workers. It’s ignorance makes it careless about the freedoms that have flowed from capitalism. The freedom for women to work, to be part of the political system, to freely marry divorce and have lives determined by them and not the state or their gender, is thanks, not to socialism alone, but to the principles laid down in early capitalist society. Without those principle socialism would have had neither the vocabulary nor the money to effect real change in peoples lives via health, welfare and personal rights.
However modern socialism with its state managed obsessions about diversity and its embrace of all things anti capitalist, is now in danger of promoting systems of rights which are pre capitalist and pre socialist. Rights defined by gender predominantly. Today socialism provides a fertile home, particularly in the United Kingdom,for islamists, misogynists, anti Semites and homophobes to flourish. The sad thing is most modern socialists including our old friend Jeremy Corbyn are too ill informed about socialisms roots to realise it, or to understand how they contribute to it…..as too are most of their voters.
Only a Blue Revolution can take ordinary workers on a progressive journey into the future, preserving our hard fought for workers rights and freedoms. Sadly the modern left will simply bankrupt us, ball us up and drop our culture into the dustbin of history, followed shortly by socialism itself!
No of course not. In 21st Century Britain there should be no issue with this. Baroness Warsi would make a great foster mum. She is bright ambitious, well connected and we assume able to square the rights of post industrial westerners with her own possible faith based reservations about a range of western identity pre occupations like sexuality or gender reassignment.
Baroness Warsi, however, was not the foster mum in the recent Uk “Times” story. The foster mum concerned was photographed shrouded in black. The purpose of this traditional dress is that it ensures women observe very strict codes of modesty. This is irrespective of how the woman might feel about this, or indeed how a foster child may view it. The collective pressure of her community and the disapproval of others ensures compliance by te woman concerned.
No little girl “Christian” or otherwise should be encouraged to see women as an object of adolescent like male lust. An object that should be shrouded to prevent community disapproval, punishment or in the case of white girls in Rochdale etc the most appalling and degrading abuse.
Are there any other issues that arise from this sad story about cultural incompatibility? Well yes. Taking a traditional view of a woman’s need for modesty should prompt the local Social Services team to ask further probing questions about the wider rights of women and girls and perhaps how the prospective foster carer views the rights of others like gay people or apostates etc (we should ask similar questions before granting citizenship).
We suspect that these questions are not asked. If they were we suspect that too many religiously observant foster carers would be considered highly unsuitable, and that seems to be Ok as long as their faith is Christan or rather non-Muslim. It’s Ok to have a go at Christians or others, they don’t hit back. This illustrates the point we at Blue Revolution make all the time and that is that in the land of the hard left London Boroughs, the general concern for individual rights including rights under the broad banner of “identity politics” can be set aside in deference to the Islamic faith. But why?
A recent programme on BBC radio 4 covered the subject of Princess Diana. A feminist author took the view that Diana was a practitioner of “victim feminism”. We are not experts on feminism but it sounds like victim feminism is based on the idea that if you claim to be abused, discriminated against and demeaned you have a right to be angry, demand approval, forgiveness, and support, in essence, given “permission” to behave how you like.
Is this what is happening within our western culture with our reaction to the orthodox observance of Islam? It may be that there are two battles going on against the West by Islamists and Islamophiles. One is fought out in the courts by Islamophile human rights Barristers all claiming special status for Islam as a persecuted and victimised faith. Whilst in Parliament the Civil Service and numerous Council chambers “victim” status is established for Islam scaring social workers, police officers and the like into acquiescence on a range of its cultural peculiarities.
The other battle goes on on the streets. On the streets where the cause of Islamophobia has its roots, where Islamism shows its aggressive and murderous side along side it’s general incompatibility with modern values linked to the rights of the individual. There is little if any Contract, Choice, and Consent in orthodox Islam and you can’t expect there to be. These are western notions forged in the white heat of capitalism and industrialization, which are alien to cultural Islam.
The lessons from this sorry tale of the little foster child are that whilst we should not in post industrial 21st century Britain be worried about anyone being fostered by anyone of faith, unfortunately, we have to be when that faith is orthodox observant Islam. Practitioners of orthodox Islam in almost all cases will hold beliefs that contradict a whole range of individual rights identity rights, and modern values. Beliefs that certainly won’t be compatible with the Human Rights Act such as the basic right of gay men to have a life or a woman to be sexually liberated from control by her “guardian” male.
With the skillful application of victim status by Human Rights Barristers within the British legal system and with a left wing Islamophle local government bureaucracy more than happy to champion these “faith victims” above all others, the dialogue with practitioners of orthodox Islam is silenced. We need a grown up conversation, not about Islam but about the values people bring to roles like fostering. The lack of this dialogue is what fuels Islamophobia. Shame on the establishment for letting the people down again!
All societies need to possess two basic characteristics, the ability to create economic value as well as social coherence. In a nut shell the ability to feed and water themselves and the ability to live within their means and maintain social order. The creation of value is an economic activity that taps into the cohesive society to provide the labour necessary to survive as a population and thrive as a culture.
In the Western world, however, we no longer see the need to do this. Because we can maintain utterly incoherent societies and pay for them with a mixture of Wizard of Oz-like financial jiggery-pokery combined with some Alice in Wonderland economics. This is the system we at Blue Revolution call Secularwesternism. It is the prevalent ideology of the Western world. We all buy into it and governments are too scared or stupid to know how to change it or change our appetite for it and its unsustainable debt funded gobbling up of the planet’s resources. It is the most damaging and unsustainable ideology that has ever evolved and it will collapse leaving economic and social devastation in its wake. The western characteristics (Contract, Choice, and Consent) upon which democracy is founded, forged by Capitalism and extended by left-leaning capitalist governments to more and more people will disappear in a trice.
There are already those religious fanatics who can see the weakness of Western society and the shameful economic model that props it up and believe they can bomb us back into what is for them a more coherent “dark-ages”, but for us would be a Sharia inspired return to a pre 18th, 17th or even 16th Century world of prejudice and discrimination. Assuming, of course, you could maintain anything that resembled a “State”.
Unfortunately for the devout Muslim with all their laudable devotions and traditional garb Sharia offers nothing “progressive” to the West, or anywhere for that matter. In this respect, it is no different to from the Old Testament. Islamism will stop Western progress in its tracks. But then Secularwesternism is doing the same thing but in a different way.
In addition to Islamism as an ideology jockeying to topple Western hegemony, we have the left wing getting in on the act. Now “the left” is an interesting hotchpotch of often incoherent ideas which have little basis in the economic reality of the Western world. So in China (and to some extent Russia), we have State Capitalism. This is the Capitalist System grafted onto an essentially feudal state. This is possible because unlike in industrializing Britain where Capitalism deposed feudalism confining it in the West to the historical dustbin, China can run the two systems in parallel.
In Britain, we have a collection of well-intentioned Mumsnetters and students who support Corbyn, the man who gives a well-meaning and harmless gloss to a party of Leninists, Stalinists anti-Semites, and Misogynists. The Corbyn Labour party is all about creating a Leninist like “Vanguard” (Momentum) seizing power on behalf of the “workers” and then re-ordering the “State” with a Stalinist like grip to deliver a new “socialist” society for the workers. It’s a horrible thought for us ordinary workers as it would turn Britain into a kind of bureaucratic hellhole, with workers, working to provide status and taxpayer-funded debt based wealth to an aggressive party elite. Rights would give way to the grand plan until the economy went pop.
The worst part of the Labour model is its complete lack of economic literacy. Unlike the Islamist who can see the absence of real social and economic value creation in the West, the British left still thinks the West makes real value from its coffee shops, restaurants and Malls selling tat, and that this value is controlled by a taxable business elite. No Guys, the West does not make real value based money it creates government and personal debt, and yes it does go to a business, banking and political elite that includes the Labour Party. And Labour would simply make the problem worse. Anti-austerity is the cause of the problem, not the solution. In the absence of real “re-appropriated value” to use a Marxist phrase, the only source of government finance apart from taxation is debt. The only way we can see to pay for schools and hospitals is to cut the cost of the State itself. But that, of course, is where the left wing gets their power from, now they have no Nationalised Industries to destroy. So we can’t expect a radical change there then!
On a more farcical note, we have the muddle of “Trumpism” which was (is) a nieve idea that somehow TPOTUS could order the US economy back to the 1950’s.
There is also Macronism, the nieve idea that Tony Blair was an enlightened thinker.
It is the workers, not the elite who will experience the horror of the West’s eventual demise and so far none of our pretenders to the Crown offers anything remotely realistic or in the case of Islamism humane. So rather than total economic and social collapse Blue Revolution offers its manifesto of increasing democracy in a shrinking state and an end to the rule of elites. Read our manifesto and join us before it is too late. As Karl Marx would say “raise your consciousness”.
More terrorism this week and threats of more transport-related atrocities in the UK. Every politician and pundit have identified the problem of the West’s lack of a narrative to counter-terrorism. The confusion over progressive values is that progressive values involve tolerating too readily regressive values such as anti Semitism or misogyny. In confusion over how to deal with primitive hate values are the so-called progressive left, an alliance of people who are united in hate of what is known as capitalism but which is, in reality, just a debt-funded “free market”. A free market that underpins the Wests freedoms.
The groups who hate this system either hate it because it confers rights to minorities they object to but for whom markets have developed to serve their needs, for example, the gay community. Or conversely, they don’t understand their own ideological confusion that the rights they enjoy, they enjoy because of the free market system they hate. This paradox is particularly marked on the left and partly explains Corbyn’s strange collection of incompatible ideological bedfellows.
This lack of coherence allows a moral fog to descend on the whole issue of individual rights and cultural expectations and confuses our understanding of the causes of the hatred of the West and thus impedes the West’s strategy or narrative for dealing with it. The modern liberal mind can’t square the circle.
Ok, so we will have a go. The West owes its existence like it or not, to capitalism, and in particular the 18th century and the codification of laws that created the legal freedom to contract choose and consent. All necessary for capitalism to work.
Before capitalism, we were bonded to masters. After capitalism, we were in a legal sense free people, the workers in the capitalist machine. The legal freedoms we acquired then and have extended since creating equality in law for minorities. These are missing from many of the world’s cultures today, particularly Islamic ones where gender, caste, tribe or wealth and status institutionalize discrimination. In these cultures, there is too often no right to contract freely to “follow your dreams”. They are pre-capitalist and pre-industrial. You only have to look at the culture of abuse and discrimination in Saudi Arabia to see how the pre-capitalist pre-industrial society works.
So the narrative for the West is to acknowledge the central role capitalism has played in creating our freedoms and whilst capitalism has its faults accept we owe our freedom to it and take pride in that. Even socialists can do this because without the productive energy of capitalism there would be no socialism. The west should then-champion the narrative of contract choice and consent and shame the bigots of whatever cultural hue into seeing themselves as regressive and at best 18th as opposed to the 21st century.
The bigots know that if you destroy the free market or we destroy it with debt, pre-industrial morals of control, coercion, and corruption become coherent. They the terrorists are trying to terrorize us back to their world so once again their values make sense.
If you are up to your neck in shark infested waters and you comment unfavourably on your chances of getting out alive you are a realist and not a pessimist. We have a well-grounded belief that if the Blue Revolution’s views are popularised and gain some traction the western world will genuinely demonstrate the “progressive” evolution boasted about by the barmy left wing. The left wing, however, have no basis for their belief in social Progress other than it makes them feel nice when they think about it.
The problem for the traditional left, that collection of well-intentioned muddle heads who promote progress at State level whilst presiding over the growth of ignorance and squalor at the social level, is that their version of progress lacks economic fundamentals. It is thus simply utopian wishful thinking bankrolled by debt and state expenditure. The model deployed by the kleptocrats of the free market is based on debt underpinned by inflated asset values. The left doesn’t seem to even have this flawed model to deliver their “progress”.
We put it on record that the western hegemony will end and without a revolutionary overhaul of the State and its responsibilities and the public and their responsibilities too, the existing state, banking and political structures when they collapse will take our rights and freedoms with them. To us, it almost feels as though the elites are planning for this eventuality and so they have created places like Dubai as bolt holes.
The reality is of course that the nature of the revolutionary overhaul is as obvious to us as the tensions and contradictions within the western system itself. Basically, there is too much debt, too much planet wasting consumption, too much inequality based on wealth management as opposed to value creation (the old capitalist way!). This new western model feeds a free market that marketizes, well whatever. It globalises human activity into poor and productive or poor and redundant depending on what the elite can get away with paying. In the west, the redundant become an underclass whose function all too quickly becomes to consume and reproduce with little real hope of escaping this entrapping lifestyle.
The revolutionary change promoted by us will involve extending democracy to a much wider group of actual legislators, such as our legislative college or peoples chamber. The identification of contract and consent as the basis for all adult human relationships….(no good if you want to promote a brand of feudalism like the Saudi’s or North Koreas), and finally a State which puts the needs of the people before the needs of certain elite groups of the people as is the case now. This final point will require a small state that regulates and doesn’t control and a cheap system of civil law which deals with most disputes apart for serious injurious criminality.
We thus have two visions of the west in the 22nd century. One is our optimistic view of an economy where everyone creates modest amounts of social and economic value and shares it around and the other our up to our neck in shark filled waters view which is that the elite will bask in the sunshine of Dubai whilst controlling the rest of us remotely via a mean gruel of welfare and autocracy. The type; Saudi, Chinese or North Korean is too early to determine and of course, the rights of one-half of the population will be affected to a greater extent than the other. It’s what happens when you return to primitivism.
One of Blue Revolutions projects was (is) a TV ideas company called ISMOLOGY. We proposed a show similar to “Eden” some four years ago which took people from the stone age to phone age and in doing so tried to capture the “moral progress” that occurred as we gained mastery over our environment. Most fundamental to this progress are women’s rights. Channel 4’s “Eden” seems to confirm our view that when economies go wrong it is women’s rights that go to the wall first. Margaret Atwood made the same point in “The Handmaids Tale”. For an economy to have a progressive future it has to be grounded in an activity that creates real distributable value and is not simply some kind of equity release scheme operated on a global scale by a political and financial elite.
Economics needs explaining to ordinary people who even under old economic paradigms struggled to understand where wealth came from. The reason we believe that a new economic instruction manual is necessary is that the “new economics” is dependent on financial services and financial services rely on asset value to underpin their activities. As we saw with the 2007/8 crash if those assets suddenly reveal themselves to be worthless then we are going to be in very big trouble again.
But what of Mr Carney, the high priest of the “Reminers” suddenly getting all optimistic about post-Brexit Britain. To us, his optimism highlights the continuity that will be necessary post Brexit and which the EU won’t be able to dismantle. How so? Well, Britain is not a fabulously rich country we have too much debt to be wealthy in the traditional sense of the term, however, we are to the world’s investors a fabulously well-endowed country with property and land holdings worth about sixty trillion dollars.
Now assuming that the Tories don’t skewer free movement and upset the housing and land asset inflation apple cart Britain will continue to prosper financially post-Brexit. The worlds investment dosh will still flow here! The problem for the Tories is that it was the issue of migration that was the prime reason for the working classes to vote Brexit, and we hoped that post-Brexit immigration would be curtailed (by the loss of welfare entitlements) so as to take the inflationary pressure out of the housing and land asset bubble and perhaps re balance the economy by encouraging other sectors.
It seems clear to us this is not going to happen. Carney’s optimism is a symptom of that. Britain will continue to rely on the Kleptocracy to fund the levers of state and pay for the publicsectocracy and the workless army of the welfare and healthcare dependent citizens who are on the books of the state.
As economic determinists, we believe so much flows from this economic model which is assumed to be permanent. Take away the slosh of money washing around in this model and what you have left is nothing. With this nothing will disappear all the rights and freedoms we enjoy now. Even Jeremy Corbyn won’t be able to borrow himself out of that situation there will be little of real value to borrow against.
The good news is it is a while off yet, but with the Western worlds house built on sand rather than rock, the end it is coming!
We will develop this later but it is about a few simple things; social and economic value and how it is created, controlled and allocated. It not difficult stoopid!
The issues of culture, cultural convergence and cultural relativism have to be understood or debated with common reference points. If not, confusion reigns as arguments are held which have common terms which unfortunately mean different things to different groups or cultures. It is essential that in the twenty-first century and particularly in the post capitalist, western post industrial period we gain some narrative which has a widely agreed objectivity so we can ensure that we don’t sacrifice our hard grafted for western liberty on the gilded altar of a neurotic moral relativism. Because this is going on now, unchallenged and utterly misunderstood. Simply look at the different ways “equality” is used around the world, particularly in relation to women’s rights.
If we deal with the world’s non-western cultures, and we won’t specify them but let’s just say they are the ones that discriminate on what we have come to know in the west as “improper” grounds, we find there is a lot of inhumane behaviour much of it state sanctioned, much of it a throw back to the primitivism that it was Capitalism’s destiny to sweep away. We have come to overlook this by adopting the stance of the moral relativist. Adopting this approach FGM is no different to a Boob job or a western contract based marriage no different from polygamy. They are legitimate or illegitimate versions of the same things. When there is a clash, for example, the death penalty for “sorcery” we turn a blind eye…..we have no narrative either to understand this or challenge it so we ignore it and the pathetic plight of those condemned by it.
The West has lost its moral leadership cowed by shrill claims of moral imperialism. The reason we have lost our humanitarian voice (except when talking to ourselves) is that we have lost touch with what makes and shapes morality….and that is economics transforming often barbaric holy books. It doesn’t matter whether it is tribal economics or advanced post industrial debt dependent consumer economics, economics shapes our moral parameters.
Because most “liberals” don’t understand the role of economics in moral behaviour they can’t create a narrative which helps us understand the traditional culture’s hatred of behaviour like homosexuality nor our western tendency to promote it. We can’t look traditional people in the eye whether here or in their country of origin and ask them whether they understand why they think our culture is immoral, or what it is about our culture they are most appalled by. We just don’t go there perhaps because we can’t face having our nieve belief that everything in the world is fine and “liberal” challenged by the opinions of “disadvantaged” ethnic groups who will shout “post colonial” at us if we challenge their moral perspective.
The only way to avoid being accused of racism or equally to avoid turning a blind eye to abuse of minority lifestyles in “traditional” cultures is to have a grounded narrative. A narrative upon which a debate can be found which avoids stereo types, or a mere race and ethnicity based slanging match but which draws out safe debate with people who harbour prejudicial views from whatever cultural origin including western culture. The basis for this narrative has to be economics as this is not only relevant territory for a healthy debate it is safe territory, at least it should be in the 21st century. Later we will examine how this relationship between economics and culture works. As we said above it is about value both social and economic. Is it as Marx suggested the riddle of history solved!
For too many decades now the west has failed to grasp that it’s unique offering to the world was its capitalist system. Loved and reviled in equal measure, those who loved it loved the wealth it conferred through its capacity to deliver massive volumes of economic value or profit. Those who hated it hated it because this economic value was created according to the left by “stealing” value from the workers. This “capitalist” system, the ability by risk taking capitalists to mix land, labour and capital to create profit was in terminal decline at the outbreak of WWII and was extinct we believe by the 1980’s.
Capitalism however shaped the British nation and the British nation shaped the world or much of it. The capitalist system needed and got a legal contractual foundation free of corruption, it required consent and it required the right to make choices. The Corn Laws were and early battle by capitalists against state vested interests as perhaps Brexit for Brexiteers is today.
the contract, choice and consent basis that capitalism needed to thrive eventually took on what is called a “social character”. It moved from being merely legal or economic to being the bedrock of what is now the welfare system with its obligation to distribute wealth, as well as becoming the basis of the “free market”.
Everyone in the west has freedom in enormous quantities, born of a capitalist system generations of westerners have grown up with and fought to preserve. We cannot imagine our freedom being under threat. But it is. It is because to accept it, you have to understand it and its origins in capitalism. Something the “stoopid” European and British “left wing” don’t get.
In the UK in Europe, Australia, Canada and America we have brought large numbers of people into our country who have no heritage of choice, consent and contract. When there is no consent in the west a crime is committed but in many cultures that escaped the furnace of 18th to 20th-century capitalism, consent is either a decadent idea or an utter irrelevance. These cultures know where consent is allowed to be practised and where it is not. Like wise with contract and choice. You cannot consent or choose to be Gay for example.
The final issue is about value. Before you can stop any culture practising discrimination against minority “lifestyles” that culture needs to produce sufficient “economic value” to survive changes to the way society is organised. A simple, primitive culture, namely one that does not create much economic value (pumping it out of the ground and selling it doesn’t count) will punish those perceived to be undermining the social and economic system. Thus gay people or those women who fail to observe a pre determined social role will be punished.
We hope this makes sense and readers can understand that capitalism liberated us and should not be condemned. We also hope the left wing will understand that by continuing their war on capitalism (even though it no longer really exists) they are waging a war on contract, choice and consent and playing into the hands of the primitive cultures for whom our freedoms are a theological and sociological abomination and our moral relativism is our Achilles heel.
The final point to ponder is this; we no longer create value in the west either social or economic, we create wealth…money. how long will our culture last therefore irrespective of the forces railed against it?