THE NATION STATE
There has been some talk in certain quarters about a crisis of capitalism. Even David Cameron has spoken of the need to make capitalism work and the Financial Times has been conducting a Capitalism in Crisis debate.
Last week BBC weighed in with an edition of Newsnight devoted to the issue. The Newsnight slant was to raise the issue of whether or not Marxism was an alternative. Ellie Mae O’Hagan, from UK Uncut, opined that socialism had been discredited as people had been conditioned by the Cold War and Stalinism. We were then treated to an interview with Eric Hobsbawm, a longstanding Marxist historian and communist apologist. Jeremy Paxman asked that ‘when we see capitalism clearly in crisis in the West now’ why was there no Marxist solution. Eric Hobsbawm’s response was that Marxism was a definition of problems that we need to deal with, and that he was pessimistic for the future that the next 20-30 years held.
There then followed a debate between Danny Finkelstein, Tristram Hunt MP [Labour], and Julie Meyer [an entrepreneur]. Tristram Hunt believed that the parameters of the debate are centre-Left and progressive. Julie Meyer defended capitalism and made the point that the government needed tax revenues and that you cannot tax a loss [a point made long ago by Enoch Powell, see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 3 May 2005]. Tristram Hunt went on the say that the capitalist model in Brazil, India and China was different from that of Western Europe and that Marx’s great achievement was to historicize capitalism.
Danny Finkelstein was unimpressed by the reverential awe being expressed of Marxism and pointed out Eric Hobsbawm’s longstanding support of the Soviet Union, which Tristram Hunt dismissed as ‘trivial and facile points’. When Danny Finkelstein pointed out that the Soviet Union ran short of paper to draw up the lists of those to be executed there were so many, Tristram Hunt dismissed this as ‘Sixth Form debating points’, proceeded to say that ‘the models of socialism that were implemented were very different to Marxist thinking’ and even quoted from Engels, although he did acknowledge that Marxism was not an alternative in the sense that we would return to the Marxian model of the 1850s. Tristram Hunt said that he favoured a John Lewis model economy.
There was a general consensus that the economy had been focused too much on the City and the financial sector.
There are several points to be made in response to this. Firstly, Marxism is a bloodthirsty revolutionary creed and not some intellectual attempt to understand the meaning of capitalism [see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 27 April 2005]. Secondly, the fact that more than 100million people were killed in the name of communism in the 20th century is being glossed over. Communism, of whatever sect of pretended intellectual status, is a vile and evil creed. Thirdly, the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation does not understand this. Would we expect to see Nazis on Newsnight opining that the Hitler model of Nazism was not true Nazism?
Fourthly, the agenda of the debate is being set to exclude the real culprits of the crisis which we undoubtedly face: globalization, including mass immigration and the EU. In capitalism a business failure does not necessitate the state staking the entire country’s wealth behind bailing out the failed business, and yet that is precisely what the British ruling class have done with the banks, whose overseas lending was in large part the cause of their demise. Yet the global economy has not bailed them out, it is the English taxpayer who has had to bail them out. Likewise, it is the national taxpayer who is has to fund the Welfare State which is now catering for a variety of nationalities, ditto the NHS. Mass immigration is ruinous to the country as a whole and the economy, and the determination to repopulate England with non-English peoples is incompatible with the survival of the English nation. The less said of the EU and the Eurozone the better, but once again it is the English taxpayer who has to meet the bills which keep piling in.
In short it is not a crisis of capitalism. It is a crisis of the nation state. It is the refusal of the British ruling class to defend the national interest that is the problem.
It is also to be noted that some alleged racially insensitive comment by a white person is denounced loudly to the point of hysteria, yet apologising for and/or glossing over communist genocide is seen as acceptable. This is the morality of the British ruling class.
Last week BBC weighed in with an edition of Newsnight devoted to the issue. The Newsnight slant was to raise the issue of whether or not Marxism was an alternative. Ellie Mae O’Hagan, from UK Uncut, opined that socialism had been discredited as people had been conditioned by the Cold War and Stalinism. We were then treated to an interview with Eric Hobsbawm, a longstanding Marxist historian and communist apologist. Jeremy Paxman asked that ‘when we see capitalism clearly in crisis in the West now’ why was there no Marxist solution. Eric Hobsbawm’s response was that Marxism was a definition of problems that we need to deal with, and that he was pessimistic for the future that the next 20-30 years held.
There then followed a debate between Danny Finkelstein, Tristram Hunt MP [Labour], and Julie Meyer [an entrepreneur]. Tristram Hunt believed that the parameters of the debate are centre-Left and progressive. Julie Meyer defended capitalism and made the point that the government needed tax revenues and that you cannot tax a loss [a point made long ago by Enoch Powell, see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 3 May 2005]. Tristram Hunt went on the say that the capitalist model in Brazil, India and China was different from that of Western Europe and that Marx’s great achievement was to historicize capitalism.
Danny Finkelstein was unimpressed by the reverential awe being expressed of Marxism and pointed out Eric Hobsbawm’s longstanding support of the Soviet Union, which Tristram Hunt dismissed as ‘trivial and facile points’. When Danny Finkelstein pointed out that the Soviet Union ran short of paper to draw up the lists of those to be executed there were so many, Tristram Hunt dismissed this as ‘Sixth Form debating points’, proceeded to say that ‘the models of socialism that were implemented were very different to Marxist thinking’ and even quoted from Engels, although he did acknowledge that Marxism was not an alternative in the sense that we would return to the Marxian model of the 1850s. Tristram Hunt said that he favoured a John Lewis model economy.
There was a general consensus that the economy had been focused too much on the City and the financial sector.
There are several points to be made in response to this. Firstly, Marxism is a bloodthirsty revolutionary creed and not some intellectual attempt to understand the meaning of capitalism [see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 27 April 2005]. Secondly, the fact that more than 100million people were killed in the name of communism in the 20th century is being glossed over. Communism, of whatever sect of pretended intellectual status, is a vile and evil creed. Thirdly, the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation does not understand this. Would we expect to see Nazis on Newsnight opining that the Hitler model of Nazism was not true Nazism?
Fourthly, the agenda of the debate is being set to exclude the real culprits of the crisis which we undoubtedly face: globalization, including mass immigration and the EU. In capitalism a business failure does not necessitate the state staking the entire country’s wealth behind bailing out the failed business, and yet that is precisely what the British ruling class have done with the banks, whose overseas lending was in large part the cause of their demise. Yet the global economy has not bailed them out, it is the English taxpayer who has had to bail them out. Likewise, it is the national taxpayer who is has to fund the Welfare State which is now catering for a variety of nationalities, ditto the NHS. Mass immigration is ruinous to the country as a whole and the economy, and the determination to repopulate England with non-English peoples is incompatible with the survival of the English nation. The less said of the EU and the Eurozone the better, but once again it is the English taxpayer who has to meet the bills which keep piling in.
In short it is not a crisis of capitalism. It is a crisis of the nation state. It is the refusal of the British ruling class to defend the national interest that is the problem.
It is also to be noted that some alleged racially insensitive comment by a white person is denounced loudly to the point of hysteria, yet apologising for and/or glossing over communist genocide is seen as acceptable. This is the morality of the British ruling class.
posted by erc @ 3:26 pm
