Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts

4 May 2017

Why people will always need protest

At the Tolpuddle Martyrs museum 2017 
Throughout history people have always had to fight for their rights. Rights denied them by the ruling elite, whether those in power be emperors, Russian Tsars, French, or British monarchs, fascist dictators, or unelected administrators handing out directives in organisations such as the European Union.

Over time, and considerable struggle, people have achieved a great deal to overcome oppression. For example, the right not to be treated as property, as the slaves were until the abolition of slavery in 1807. We also take it for granted today, but it really wasn't that long ago that only the very wealthiest property owners that were allowed to vote in general elections. Men with urban property got the vote in 1867, while men without property over 21, had to wait until after the end of First World War in 1918 to be eligible to vote. Women without property, thanks to the Suffraget Movement, finally got the vote ten years later in 1928. Finally, under a Labour Government, Harold Wilson in 1969 made it possible for 18 year olds to decide who represents them in Parliament, and so the fight for democracy goes on. Today, 16 year olds, while old enough to get married and have children, are unable to vote. It must be right that young people should have the chance to choose who makes the laws that they are expected to obey? Democracy, it seems, even now, is work-in-progress.

As a consequence of past class struggles men and women are now able to vote in general elections and choose, if they wish, to elect representatives that will demand a descent living wage, a proper education, adequate health care and to be cared for when they get old.  Progressive change would not have happened were it not for the 19th century liberal approach to politics, or without 20th century Socialism. 

For me it seems an enduring truth that there are two broad views of how people are to be governed: The Conservative way and the Labour way. The distinction is simple, the Conservative Party exists to look after and maintain the the interests of the owners capital while the Labour Party's purpose is to protect the workers (the people that created the wealth) and to make sure that the ill treatment and shameful exploitation of human beings that existed in the past should never be allowed to come back again. 

There is still much work to do and damaging inequality still remains in the UK. For example, the richest 1000 people have more wealth than the poorest 40% of the population.

Realistically, it's going to be difficult to persuade, or legislate to compel those currently controlling the country's wealth to part with it, because once the cash is in their hands they are adept at finding imaginative ways to cling on to it. The money goes offshore, squirreled away in trust funds so that the very wealthy never really pay a fair share of tax. As a consequence life remains a struggle for those without the financial means to compete, so the best most people can do is hope for is an occasional Labour Government who, if they resist the temptation to slip back into Tory Light, should be capable of temporarily tipping the balance in favour of working people and take sufficient power away from the wealthy few so that, maybe, nurses, carers and others desperate for assistance, won't have use food banks to keep going? I think we're due for that kind of change right now. 

History of Voting
Equal Franchise Act 1928
Labour's Manifesto 2017
UK Equality Trust
World Wealth Inequality
More on Socialism
Why I voted for Jeremy Corbyn in 2015

21 April 2017

Why do Conservatives fear change so much?

Conservatism means leaving things the way they are for fear of change.



The fear of change is not felt by those surviving each day using food banks, or by those who can only find work on a zero-hours contract. Hard working families unable to afford a home to live in don't fear change either. No - the fear of change, the fear of a more equal society, isn't felt by the disadvantaged, it is felt by the land owner, the million pound a year CEO and the very wealthiest in our society that stash their wealth offshore so they don't have to pay their share towards our country's armed forces, the police, NHS and schools...
I want change and think it's essential to create a fairer and more equal society. I am voting for change on June 8th.  

More on Politics

29 January 2017

Judge Trump on "what he does" says Pope Francis

When Pope Francis was asked how he felt about Donald Trump's inauguration he said: "We will see what he [Donald Trump] does and judge accordingly". Later, in the same interview with El Pais, Pope Francis talked about Adolf Hitler and his political uprising in Germany in 1933. I couldn't help thinking that the pontiff was trying to draw a parallel between the two leaders?

The forgotten modern day Americans, left behind by the political status quo, may well be craving a saviour as millions of Germans did in the 1930s, but can Trump's meteoric rise, anymore than Hitler's, be attributed to the inspirational ability of one man alone?

Remarkable leaders have a habit of emerging when the need arises: Winston Churchill stepped in to save Britain from Hitler in 1940 who himself had been elected to save Germany from the Weimar Republic and economic oblivion in 1933 and so it is for America in 2017 that Donald Trump has appeared to save America from a thirty-five year Bush-Clinton political dynasty that has, from George Bush senior as Vice President in 1981 to Hilary Clinton, as Obama's Sectary of State until 2016, put a Bush, or a Clinton in the top three most influential political positions in United States government. Agree with Churchill, Hitler and Trump, or not, these strong leaders rose to power because there was a perceived political need for them to do so and, make no mistake about it, no politician can rise to the top of a democracy without significant popular and institutional support for radical change.


The rise of Donald Trump, the far right National Front in France, UKIP, with it's 4 million UK votes and the Labour Party’s return to grass-roots left-wing social activism through Jeremy Corbyn, is evidence of a political need to correct social imbalances created by decades of largely unregulated economic systems. It may well be that in the US, through Donald Trump, that the establishment has the collective wisdom to recognise the impending and potentially calamitous probability of political rebellion and, because of the fear of losing it's position at the top, will, temporarily, organise the sharing out America’s colossal wealth a bit more evenly.

My point is that it's not men like Adolf Hitler, or Donald Trump that the ruling elite have to worry about - it's failing socio-economic systems. Pope Francis is right to warn about the rise of fascism, but no one man, or woman, is sufficiently clever to single handedly mobilise millions of people and overthrow a modern day political system anymore than it was possible for a single French, or Russian subject to reverse 100s of years of absolute monarchy.  The way I see it, it's the failure of government to tackle wealth inequality and the feelings of unfairness that ultimately results in rebellion, civil war and the overthrow of the ruling elite.

Put it another way, there are optimistic signs that, particularly in the US, of an acknowledgement that the only safe way to avoid creeping world-wide fascism is for the owners of capital (i.e. the people who actually control the a country's political and economic affairs) to instruct the government to administer the provision of adequate food, shelter and employment for its entire people. This is what Donald Trump said as he was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America:

"For too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have born the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs and, while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land..." Donald Trump, Inauguration Speech, Friday 13th January 2017.

In a civilised country a more even allocation of wealth should be a basic human right. Pope Francis appears to agree with this when he said: "I am worried about the economic inequalities in the world: the fact that a small group of humans has over 80% of the world's wealth..." Allocation of wealth is determined largely by what the establishment calculates they can get away with, but strange as it may seem, I believe that Donald Trump is the part of an political agenda that accepts the probability that if nothing is done to re-balance a world economy that concentrates 98% of the world’s wealth in the hands of 2% of the population, the ruling elite run the risk that the wars they fight to maintain their place at the top will no longer be fought in faraway lands, but much closer to home and they could, like the French and Russian ruling monarchies before them, lose the lot.

20 September 2016

Will the boss vote for Jeremy Corbyn?

Your private landlord won't vote Corbyn because Jeremy's determined to house the poor and your boss won't vote for Jeremy Corbyn either, because when the workers get less the boss gets more...



Jeremy Corbyn's Policies for Britain 
More on Jeremy Corbyn

9 August 2016

Should the Parliamentary Labour Party stop being ashamed of socialism?

The problem for the parliamentary labour party is that they have spent so long arguing for a sanitised version of capitalism that they appear to have forgotten what the Labour Party is for - which is argue for a better deal for workers and to oppose the dismantling of the welfare state - two objectives that help to even up the gap between the haves and have nots.


You don't change the political culture by pretending to a be a bit like the Tories in the hope that some of the less ruthless of them might vote for Labour. A more equal and fair society will only happen when the when the right wing of the Labour Party stop being ashamed of socialism and stand up for the interests of the people left behind by capitalists in both the Tory and Labour Party.


At the moment the honest way for a true socialist to act is to back Jeremy Corbyn.  Labour members that support free market capitalism can find a more natural home in the Conservative Party, or (even) resuscitate the SDP?

10 October 2014