Brexiteers against free movement?

[carryfast]

Grandpa:
Yes, you’re right. Everything under the sun except the EU. I’m still scratching my head how politicians of 30 to 40 years ago took us into an EU that didn’t even exist then.

You’ve still not given up trying to desperately change history by trying to ignore the inconvenient question what was it that Powell,Shore and Benn knew about the treaty of Rome that your obvious idol Thatcher supposedly didn’t.Also why the need for Heath to bury FCO 30/1048 in that case ?.

Oh and what was the European Union mentioned within the aims of the Council of Europe formed in 1949 all about.

Remind us what the Single European Act was all about and who was the PM when it was ratified by the UK ?.

[rjan]

Grandpa:

Rjan:
…

Marx was wrong on class theory. It’s still Marxism, now cultural Marxism.

If Marx was wrong on class theory then any alternative analysis is not Marxism. Class is central to Marx. To call any theory which rejects class “Marxist”, is to call black white.

‘During the Thatcher and Reagan years the left took a back seat, abandoned the workers …’ The left abandoned the workers and concentrated on minorities, not Thatcher and Reagan.

The left was hardly idle during the Thatcher years. People had the option of Michael Foot, and the looming presence of Tony Benn, in 1983.

Gilets Jaunes is not a workers revolution, it’s a political protest against the establishment. The reason the workers don’t protest today is because as you rightly say, they have no power. They have no power because they’re competing against cheap foreign labour and can be easily replaced.

I’m not suggesting it is a workers’ revolution, but it meets the criteria of being a workers’ protest.

And I agree the problem is too much competition. But ask a lot of people about free markets and competition and a significant number will still beg for more. It is only when workers cease to accept governance by markets, where the rich have almost all of the votes, that any power will return to them.

You’re implying that a drugs and drink epidemic were the consequences of Thatcher closing down the mines? There wasn’t an epidemic then, but if that’s the cause, where was the epidemic in the 30s in the depression when millions were unemployed?

There probably were drink epidemics in the 1930s, for any who could still afford to drink. Hard drugs were still too expensive for working class people at the time. Malnutrition was probably considered the greater social evil then however.

The reason drugs took hold in ex-mining areas was predominantly because it was cheaper than drinking.

Free markets and open borders are two separate things. The open European border policy began under the EU. The Russians and Ukrainians aren’t in the EU and don’t have free movement rights.

Open borders are a facet of a free market in labour. It is immaterial whether Russians and Ukrainians have free movement rights by treaty, if the Tories are granting appreciable numbers of them movement rights in circumstances specifically designed to undermine wages for workers already settled here.

It’s a fantasy of the right that those objecting to free movement are quite happy to have their wages forced down, provided it is by white people or by those who speak English, or provided the Tories have individually stamped their visas on the way in.

People objecting to free movement generally want inflows to be significantly reduced, not the same number of people (or more) arriving merely under a different immigration scheme.

And you go on …

Nobody is paid £5ph hour for cleaning a toilet bowl. There’s a minimum wage.

Whatever the figure may be, it’s a limp response to an argument that hardly depended on whether the minimum figure was £5 an hour or £7.83 an hour.

The Russians went from backwater to superpower after abandoning socialist policies, not the Czar.

Another lost in space socialist!

I’ve no sympathy for those gullible enough to believe in some kind of workers utopia provided by elite and wealthy socialists and ex-communists. I know why it happened and you got what you deserved.

I don’t even follow you.

[grandpa]

Re: Rjan.

The term Marxism stems from its originator – Marx. That he got some aspects wrong doesn’t distract from that as he was correct on many others, primarily explaining capitalism. Thatcher too made many errors, it’s still termed Thatcherism.

The left were sidelined during the 80s, Thatcher was PM, not Foot or Benn.

Of course you’re suggesting Gilets Jaunes is a workers protest, you said so. Let me remind you as you try to backtrack. ‘You say we see no workers’ protests - why is France aflame with its gilets jaunes?’

No Rjan, there wasn’t a drug epidemic in the 30s on the level there is today. The current epidemic is not just in the mining areas, it’s nationwide. There is no correlation to the amount of alcohol and drug misuse due to mine closures and there wasn’t when they were closed. It’s a recent phenomenon.

Open borders for populations has nothing to do with free trade and again is a recent deliberate attempt to create a multicultural society. Low wages are a by-product of that. The Tories are not responsible for EU open borders, the EU are. It’s also nothing to do with the ‘right.’ What is creating low wages is the influx of cheap foreign labour as a result of open borders and creating competition in the labour market.

No, not ‘whatever the figure may be,’ let me again remind you what you said; ‘whilst paying only £5 an hour to have his toilets cleaned.’ It’s not a ‘limp response’ It’s a factual correction that no one is getting £5ph for working and there is a minimum wage way above £5ph.

I’m not a right or left winger, I present facts and explain. You’re not meant to follow me Rjan, its way above your head. The bottom line is you’re a socialist, you obviously want the EU, so deal with the consequences.

Just as an aside to the link I gave:

Cultural Marxism - Social Chaos

‘You can always find someone else to support any old [zb]. You might try having a go to explain the essence of the theory yourself, in a forum where (unlike that author) you can be challenged on it.’

I am the author. It’s what I do in my spare time. You’re welcome to challenge me on it.

[rjan]

Grandpa:
Re: Rjan.

The term Marxism stems from its originator – Marx. That he got some aspects wrong doesn’t distract from that as he was correct on many others, primarily explaining capitalism. Thatcher too made many errors, it’s still termed Thatcherism.

I agree a mere modification can still have continuity from the original thinker, but class is so fundamental to Marx that it cannot be rejected (or even made peripheral) whilst maintaining any link to Marxism.

It would be like suggesting that the Soviet economy was “planned Thatcherism” - there is no credible link!

The left were sidelined during the 80s, Thatcher was PM, not Foot or Benn.

Yes, and that is the responsibility of the electorate for sidelining left-wing politics, not the other way around! Your argument was that the left had abandoned the working class - I say the working class were given a clear choice and, at the time, opted for the very arrangements they now suffer.

Of course you’re suggesting Gilets Jaunes is a workers protest, you said so. Let me remind you as you try to backtrack. ‘You say we see no workers’ protests - why is France aflame with its gilets jaunes?’

Where have I backtracked on that?

No Rjan, there wasn’t a drug epidemic in the 30s on the level there is today. The current epidemic is not just in the mining areas, it’s nationwide. There is no correlation to the amount of alcohol and drug misuse due to mine closures and there wasn’t when they were closed. It’s a recent phenomenon.

I never said there was a drug epidemic in the 30s - I specifically said the cost of such products would have made it difficult for working class people to indulge (morphine addictions were mostly the preserve of doctors and other professional classes).

Open borders for populations has nothing to do with free trade and again is a recent deliberate attempt to create a multicultural society. Low wages are a by-product of that. The Tories are not responsible for EU open borders, the EU are. It’s also nothing to do with the ‘right.’ What is creating low wages is the influx of cheap foreign labour as a result of open borders and creating competition in the labour market.

I agree trading goods does not logically entail trading workers. My point is that they are both within the agenda of those who support free markets.

You say the Tories are not responsible for open borders. Why, then, at the first sign of Eastern European migration abating, do they open up new borders, allowing or encouraging flows from areas which would not previously have been allowed?

I agree with you that unfettered competition drives down wages and living standards. But markets and competition, as a glorious ideal, are of the radical right.

No, not ‘whatever the figure may be,’ let me again remind you what you said; ‘whilst paying only £5 an hour to have his toilets cleaned.’ It’s not a ‘limp response’ It’s a factual correction that no one is getting £5ph for working and there is a minimum wage way above £5ph.

And my response is that the exact figure matters not. There isn’t any “minimum wage” in terms of guaranteed hours, so that a cleaner may well receive an income less even than £5 a week, if they are told they aren’t needed that week.

None of that, however, matters to my point, which is that the condition in which the financier lives is related to that of the cleaner - a point which you deny.

I’m not a right or left winger, I present facts and explain. You’re not meant to follow me Rjan, its way above your head. The bottom line is you’re a socialist, you obviously want the EU, so deal with the consequences.

It’s pretty clear you are a right-winger advancing a specific argument, not just here as a passive and neutral font of knowledge.

Just as an aside to the link I gave:

(PDF) Cultural Marxism - Social Chaos | John V Asia Teacher - Academia.edu

‘You can always find someone else to support any old [zb]. You might try having a go to explain the essence of the theory yourself, in a forum where (unlike that author) you can be challenged on it.’

I am the author. It’s what I do in my spare time. You’re welcome to challenge me on it.

Ah haha!

Well give me until later on, and I will have a closer look to see how you manage to link any theory you espouse to Marx or a Marxist tradition. Presumably, there will be some references to Marx’s works. I’ll then come back to you.

[grandpa]

Class wasn’t central to Marx, it was capitalism and who controlled the means and modes of production. The proletariat were simply the catalyst for the revolution as they were most affected by it. The way it works is that the classical theorists put forward ideas and politicians adapt them to suit the era and circumstances. So for instance, Marx’s promise of bread for the workers would sound odd in the 21st century and so that would be updated to a welfare state. Capitalism as an economic theory arose during the 17th century and has also undergone many changes, but we still refer to it as capitalism.

Do you remember the late 70s? Do you remember the mess the country was in? Left or right it doesn’t matter, Thatcher took over from a basket case economy and a near bankrupt Britain. What was the first thing Blair did when Labour returned? He abandoned socialist policies, got rid of the red flag and introduced what he called, ‘the third way.’ He already knew it was over.

Of course you backtracked. Your original quote was: ‘You say we see no workers’ protests - why is France aflame with its gilets jaunes?’ I merely corrected you that it wasn’t a workers protest, but a protest against the establishment.

Neither the Tories nor Labour are responsible for European open borders. It’s EU law.

Rjan, let me break this to you gently. I’m John V. For the purposes of this forum, I’m Grandpa. On various other forums and international websites I use various pseudonyms. I’ve written for China Daily, Russia Insider and Robs, The Blogmire amongst various others. For the past decade I’ve worked as an English and social science teacher (which includes political science) in various private and government schools in the Far East. I previously studied the social sciences in English universities for ten years and my highest qualification is a Master’s degree.

Now, all that doesn’t make me 100% right on everything, but it gives me enough knowledge to have been paid for what I know and I can sense opinionated BS when I read it. Like many former academics I also make a common mistake in assuming that when I’m talking about sociology or political science I assume that the audience has a fundamental grasp behind the basic knowledge that underpins it, which often they don’t and why I’m left to correct errors instead of debating the issues, as I am with you.

I’m back in the UK now because Asia has an employment limit of 60 and I’m over that, so I’m doing the paperwork to renew my expired HGV licence and I’ll get back into that until I retire.

Now, instead of arguing at a basic level, I’ll do a brief explanation of cultural Marxism in an off the top of my head short essay form, because there is no way you are going to even understand the introduction to the link and reply with gibberish. You aren’t meant to, it’s an academic essay on an academic site. You may do the same and lay out your arguments? Agreed? Now, let’s see what happens. Here’s mine.

[grandpa]

Cultural Marxism easily explained.

The underlying principle, or the central theme behind socialist policies is equality, everything else is an add-on or a by-product of that. Equality means a leveling of society, providing a reference point where everybody becomes the same. That is not a natural occurrence in society and so they have to be socially engineered (changed) to allow that to happen. Previously there were countries, or kingdoms or tribes, but they all had borders that contained the different values within them. The EU seeks to change that by dissolving nation states and introducing open borders to produce one multicultural society called Europe.

The first problem is that Europe is not an ethnicity, it’s a location, a continent in which the Swedish are very different culturally from say, the Greeks. The second problem is that in trying to erase dissimilarities, people are urged to forget their culture, their collective memory, roots and belonging and become part of a melting pot and that has showed not to have happened. Thirdly, if we have no borders or country we have to re-write history because countries no longer exist. We can no longer say Britain stopped a German invasion in 1940 because a future generation wouldn’t know what Britain or Germany was. You’d have to say one part of central Europe tried to invade the western side of Europe.

The idea behind multiculturalism is that as cultures are learned they can also be unlearned, but that means giving up national identity and values and that has never happened in history and why the EU is often referred to as a project. It’s a, ‘let’s try it and see what happens’ project. This loss of national identity or cohesion is why we see English Muslims running off to fight the west as Jihadists. It’s what caused anarchist Antifa and BLM to emerge during the Obama years and why p.ussy riot took off in Europe. They all have one thing in common, they’re minority protest groups. If countries don’t have a past, a heritage, there’s nothing left to fight for and groups then fight for dominance.

Multiculturalism doesn’t work and the political elite already knew it. As long ago as 2010 Merkel stated: “This [multicultural] approach has failed, utterly failed.” A year later Cameron also acknowledged the failure of “the doctrine of state multiculturalism.” Currently, Hungary, Serbia and Poland are all refusing multiculturalism, with Italy recently joining in. So why does a failed project continue? The rhetorical answer is that if the EU acknowledges cultural equality failure the whole socialist project collapses.

Britain is not multicultural, it’s a series of mono (singular) cultures. Any city in Europe and Britain produces the same results. People self-segregate; over here you have the Muslims in a ghetto, community, or call it what you like and over there is China Town and over there are the East Europeans. Some have what is politely termed ‘no-go’ areas, but all contain separate values. One of the popular back to front EU catch phrases is, ‘Diversity is our strength.’ Diversity is not a strength, it’s a weakness. Its meaning implies differences, a separation of consensus and produces divisions within society. Cultural Marxism can only occur in weak societies without nationalism or patriotism and so it’s in the interests of the EU to remove those. The crime wave and low competitive wages are simply a by-product of trying to socially engineer equality.

The whole ethos behind cultural Marxism is to destroy western traditional values and replace them with a cultural wasteland of nothingness, a type of cultural anarchy pitting one group against another. It’s what it was designed for. Eventually, as these groups start to battle it out for dominance the only way to stop it is by an authoritarian government and you’ve just achieved what Marx wanted without a red flag, or a shot fired. The EU didn’t invent cultural Marxism, but used it to great effect and the consequences are what we’re seeing now.

[carryfast]

Grandpa:
Cultural Marxism easily explained.

The underlying principle, or the central theme behind socialist policies is equality, everything else is an add-on or a by-product of that. Equality means a leveling of society, providing a reference point where everybody becomes the same. That is not a natural occurrence in society and so they have to be socially engineered (changed) to allow that to happen. Previously there were countries, or kingdoms or tribes, but they all had borders that contained the different values within them. The EU seeks to change that by dissolving nation states and introducing open borders to produce one multicultural society called Europe.

The first problem is that Europe is not an ethnicity, it’s a location, a continent in which the Swedish are very different culturally from say, the Greeks. The second problem is that in trying to erase dissimilarities, people are urged to forget their culture, their collective memory, roots and belonging and become part of a melting pot and that has showed not to have happened. Thirdly, if we have no borders or country we have to re-write history because countries no longer exist. We can no longer say Britain stopped a German invasion in 1940 because a future generation wouldn’t know what Britain or Germany was. You’d have to say one part of central Europe tried to invade the western side of Europe.

The idea behind multiculturalism is that as cultures are learned they can also be unlearned, but that means giving up national identity and values and that has never happened in history and why the EU is often referred to as a project. It’s a, ‘let’s try it and see what happens’ project. This loss of national identity or cohesion is why we see English Muslims running off to fight the west as Jihadists. It’s what caused anarchist Antifa and BLM to emerge during the Obama years and why p.ussy riot took off in Europe. They all have one thing in common, they’re minority protest groups. If countries don’t have a past, a heritage, there’s nothing left to fight for and groups then fight for dominance.

Multiculturalism doesn’t work and the political elite already knew it. As long ago as 2010 Merkel stated: “This [multicultural] approach has failed, utterly failed.” A year later Cameron also acknowledged the failure of “the doctrine of state multiculturalism.” Currently, Hungary, Serbia and Poland are all refusing multiculturalism, with Italy recently joining in. So why does a failed project continue? The rhetorical answer is that if the EU acknowledges cultural equality failure the whole socialist project collapses.

Britain is not multicultural, it’s a series of mono (singular) cultures. Any city in Europe and Britain produces the same results. People self-segregate; over here you have the Muslims in a ghetto, community, or call it what you like and over there is China Town and over there are the East Europeans. Some have what is politely termed ‘no-go’ areas, but all contain separate values. One of the popular back to front EU catch phrases is, ‘Diversity is our strength.’ Diversity is not a strength, it’s a weakness. Its meaning implies differences, a separation of consensus and produces divisions within society. Cultural Marxism can only occur in weak societies without nationalism or patriotism and so it’s in the interests of the EU to remove those. The crime wave and low competitive wages are simply a by-product of trying to socially engineer equality.

The whole ethos behind cultural Marxism is to destroy western traditional values and replace them with a cultural wasteland of nothingness, a type of cultural anarchy pitting one group against another. It’s what it was designed for. Eventually, as these groups start to battle it out for dominance the only way to stop it is by an authoritarian government and you’ve just achieved what Marx wanted without a red flag, or a shot fired. The EU didn’t invent cultural Marxism, but used it to great effect and the consequences are what we’re seeing now.

Blimey all those qualifications and you don’t understand the difference between International v Supranational while Nationalism combined with Nativism is actually the ultimate form of multiculturalism.You know all the MANY DIFFERENT cultures all living in their own individual geographic bubbles just as nature intended.While the Socialists actually believe in Monoculture.IE integration/assimilation by definition meaning ONE culture meaning Mono not bleedin Multi and then like you they call it Multiculture.But the problem being nature refuses to play at such a stupid game and we therefore get,as you rightly for once say,natural self segregation again just as nature intended.While a ‘Monoculture’ is exactly what Stalin and Tito were trying to create in the form of the Soviet Union and Yugoslav Federation.Again nature decided otherwise.So here we are back again with a multicultural Asia along good old fashioned Nationalist lines having smashed the Soviet Union and the Balkans having also returned to their former ‘many’ ( multi ) different Nation States/Cultures like Islamic Bosnia and Catholic Slovenia and orthodox Serbia and all the different ethnicities which automatically go with those different Churches.

Oh wait that was until the EU offered them similar economic sweeteners ( bribes ) to start the whole ridiculous process again.This time not just intent on over running states like Croatia and Serbia etc with an ethnic Turkish prescence as Tito tried to do but the whole of the Eurasian continent with an Asian and sub Saharan African one along the lines of the Kalergi Plan.All with a similar intent as Tito in trying to Socially engineer a ‘Monoculture’ in this case made up of Slavic/European/Scandic/Asian/African ‘ethnicities’ and their ‘former’ cultures all supposedly integrated/assimilated into one big ( Mono ) happy cultural family.What could possibly go wrong.

On that note it takes a ( former ) Socialist to know and understand the Socialist mindset and the lies and subterfuge it uses to get its way.Dressing up the integration/assimilation of different cultures into one as so called ‘Multiculturalism’,when it’s actually the exact opposite,being one of those lies.Let alone then going to the opposite extreme of reverse racism and so called positive discrimination in favour of the alien cultures which they are trying to use as a Trojan Horse to impose their insane policies on us.Then supposed experts like you obviously buy it and as intended then go barking up the wrong diversionary tree.In this case confusing Multiculturalism,( which by definition means segregation ultimately along Nation Sate lines meaning the only logical solution as Powell rightly said of repatriation ),with Monoculturalism,thereby allowing the Socialists to play you at your own game.

Just as you think that Thatcher wasn’t an EU stooge and Reagan didn’t sell the west out to Chinese Communism with a bit of help from Nixon.Oh wait you don’t even think that China is a Communist state in which case Deng has also obviously fooled you too with his mice analogy.

[rjan]

Grandpa:
Class wasn’t central to Marx, it was capitalism and who controlled the means and modes of production.

And who did Marx say controlled the means of production? The bourgeoisie - the ruling class.

The proletariat were simply the catalyst for the revolution as they were most affected by it.

In Marxist theory the proletariat aren’t the catalyst for revolution - they are the revolutionary force.

The way it works is that the classical theorists put forward ideas and politicians adapt them to suit the era and circumstances. So for instance, Marx’s promise of bread for the workers would sound odd in the 21st century and so that would be updated to a welfare state. Capitalism as an economic theory arose during the 17th century and has also undergone many changes, but we still refer to it as capitalism.

And I accept that approach. I’m not giving you a hard time simply because Marx himself cannot be found to have said something you are espousing, or because there have been modifications to his theory since his lifetime.

On the contrary, I’m saying your “cultural Marxism” has no relation to Marxist theory whatsoever. It’s as big a lie as when “Jewish finance” was blamed for failing capitalism in Germany.

Do you remember the late 70s? Do you remember the mess the country was in? Left or right it doesn’t matter, Thatcher took over from a basket case economy and a near bankrupt Britain.

And that is a pile of codswallop which shows you were reading too many Sun headlines in the 1980s. The country was not bankrupt nor a basket case in 1979. In fact Thatcher made short work of creating a basket case, with the destruction of almost all heavy industry and manufacturing, and more than one in ten thrown onto the dole by 1981 owing to her fiscal policies.

What was the first thing Blair did when Labour returned? He abandoned socialist policies, got rid of the red flag and introduced what he called, ‘the third way.’ He already knew it was over.

Blair abandoned socialist policies long before he gained power. And look at the results.

Of course you backtracked. Your original quote was: ‘You say we see no workers’ protests - why is France aflame with its gilets jaunes?’ I merely corrected you that it wasn’t a workers protest, but a protest against the establishment.

So the French rich are donning hi-vizes to challenge Macron, are they? And what introduced these general protests was industrial action by French railway workers, rejecting Macron’s intention to “liberalise” it, and by implication destroy the quality and security of their jobs.

Neither the Tories nor Labour are responsible for European open borders. It’s EU law.

I didn’t address the question of who was “responsible” for free movement in Europe. I said it is consistent with the politics of the radical right to have free movement when it serves to erode workers’ bargaining power and reduces wages. Don’t believe me? Look at the non-EU immigration levels - that is, immigration from places with which we do not have open borders by virtue of any treaty - under the Tories in the past 9 years.

I started this thread precisely by pointing out that the instant that EU workers have dried up (for exact reasons that are debatable), the Tories are bringing over cheap labour from Russia and Ukraine, rather than using the opportunity to force farmers to invest in machinery, invest in better growing techniques (for example, table-top production which doesn’t require as much back-breaking labour in the fields), or just force them to pay settled workers who are willing to labour outdoors what they quite reasonably expect for doing it.

Rjan, let me break this to you gently. I’m John V. For the purposes of this forum, I’m Grandpa. On various other forums and international websites I use various pseudonyms. I’ve written for China Daily, Russia Insider and Robs, The Blogmire amongst various others. For the past decade I’ve worked as an English and social science teacher (which includes political science) in various private and government schools in the Far East. I previously studied the social sciences in English universities for ten years and my highest qualification is a Master’s degree.

Now, all that doesn’t make me 100% right on everything, but it gives me enough knowledge to have been paid for what I know and I can sense opinionated BS when I read it.

You think the ruling class don’t find ways of paying people to spout [zb]?

Like many former academics I also make a common mistake in assuming that when I’m talking about sociology or political science I assume that the audience has a fundamental grasp behind the basic knowledge that underpins it, which often they don’t and why I’m left to correct errors instead of debating the issues, as I am with you.

The only significant errors that have been corrected here are yours.

I’m back in the UK now because Asia has an employment limit of 60 and I’m over that, so I’m doing the paperwork to renew my expired HGV licence and I’ll get back into that until I retire.

Now, instead of arguing at a basic level, I’ll do a brief explanation of cultural Marxism in an off the top of my head short essay form, because there is no way you are going to even understand the introduction to the link and reply with gibberish. You aren’t meant to, it’s an academic essay on an academic site. You may do the same and lay out your arguments? Agreed? Now, let’s see what happens. Here’s mine.

It certainly goes to show why people have had enough of experts!

I’ve read your following post, and not all of it is total nonsense. But my purpose here is not to address you on the soundness of your views in general, or identify what I do and don’t agree with generally. It is to question what any of it has to do with Marxism, and why you are calling it Marxist when I can see no link whatsoever. I say that having read all the materials you have provided so far.

You say yourself in your paper, “Cultural Marxism bears no relation to communism itself”!

Which themes are common both to the works of Marx and to your “cultural Marxism”?

I also picked up on the following in your paper:

In the UK, where inherent liberty has been a fundamental principle of the political culture for centuries, we are seriously considering banning (that is, making illegal) whole categories of speech: not just forms of words that specifically incite crime but the propagation of potentially incendiary ideas and hateful expressions of feeling

You do realise that it used to be illegal in the UK both to form workers’ unions, and to even talk to other workers with the intention of persuading or inciting them to join a union or to strike? You’re talking utter codswallop when you imagine the Victorian era as some sort of ideal of liberty and free speech for ordinary people!

[grandpa]

@Rjan and Carryfast

I wasn’t expecting an essay from either of you, just more of the same opinions and you didn’t disappoint me. I wasn’t discussing international v supranational and nationalism is the opposite of multiculturalism and why the EU are trying to do away with nation states and borders. Socialists believe in the plurality and equality of cultures (international) not one which is nationalistic and contains a singular set of values. It’s why multiculturalism failed in the west and morphed into a predictable series of self-segregated mono cultures. Why do you keep embarrassing yourselves? I’m getting fed up of a one-sided dialogue that consists of my endlessly correcting your mistakes which go way over your heads. You’re not up to debate level, my posts are explanatory.

I’ll say it again, how could Thatcher have sold out to the EU when in her time the EU didn’t even exist? How and what did Reagan sell out to the Chinese when in his day the Chinese economy was a basket case? Where did I say that China wasn’t a communist state? I lived and worked in China for many years, don’t you think I know that China is ideologically communist with a capitalist economic system?

I’ll give you both a tip. Google is invaluable for referencing quotes, dates, times and places. What it’s not good at is knowledge, because much of the information is third hand subjective. It’s why we have universities. To get information you need to visit specialist academic sites and both read and understand submitted papers up to Ph.D. level and that’s way beyond either of your comprehension. Think about it. You’re on a forum telling an ex-teacher in political science that your opinion is right and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? YOU want to address me on political science?

Well OK, give me your academic qualifications, or better still, write the suggested essay and make your points instead of endlessly critiquing with opinions which are 90% wrong. You’re not giving me a hard time academically, you’re giving me a headache trying to debate academically using opinion nonsense which even when proved wrong you both ignore. Go on, it’s a challenge, enough of the nonsense about Britain being an absolute monarchy and not knowing that Scargill was a communist. Let’s have something from either of you.

[carryfast]

Grandpa:
@Rjan and Carryfast

I wasn’t expecting an essay from either of you, just more of the same opinions and you didn’t disappoint me. I wasn’t discussing international v supranational and nationalism is the opposite of multiculturalism and why the EU are trying to do away with nation states and borders. Socialists believe in the plurality and equality of cultures (international) not one which is nationalistic and contains a singular set of values. It’s why multiculturalism failed in the west and morphed into a predictable series of self-segregated mono cultures. Why do you keep embarrassing yourselves? I’m getting fed up of a one-sided dialogue that consists of my endlessly correcting your mistakes which go way over your heads. You’re not up to debate level, my posts are explanatory.

I’ll say it again, how could Thatcher have sold out to the EU when in her time the EU didn’t even exist? How and what did Reagan sell out to the Chinese when in his day the Chinese economy was a basket case? Where did I say that China wasn’t a communist state? I lived and worked in China for many years, don’t you think I know that China is ideologically communist with a capitalist economic system?

I’ll give you both a tip. Google is invaluable for referencing quotes, dates, times and places. What it’s not good at is knowledge, because much of the information is third hand subjective. It’s why we have universities. To get information you need to visit specialist academic sites and both read and understand submitted papers up to Ph.D. level and that’s way beyond either of your comprehension. Think about it. You’re on a forum telling an ex-teacher in political science that your opinion is right and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? YOU want to address me on political science?

Well OK, give me your academic qualifications, or better still, write the suggested essay and make your points instead of endlessly critiquing with opinions which are 90% wrong. You’re not giving me a hard time academically, you’re giving me a headache trying to debate academically using opinion nonsense which even when proved wrong you both ignore. Go on, it’s a challenge, enough of the nonsense about Britain being an absolute monarchy and not knowing that Scargill was a communist. Let’s have something from either of you.

The difference between International v Supranational is fact not opinion.As is the fact that Thatcher knew exactly what the treaty of Rome meant in terms of ‘‘ever closer Union’’ just as Powell did.

As is the fact that ‘many’ different Nation States,all with differing cultures and ethnic origins,are the definition of a ‘multi’ cultural world.You know the same one that God gave us all to live together in as friends with fences.As opposed to the artificial collective integration within the supranational Federation like Yugoslavia which attempted to fuse together all those different ethnicities and cultures into one singular mass ( monoculture ) and predictably failed spectacularly because nature abhors such an idea.

Isn’t that what you’re actually trying to say.But obviously too brainwashed by your education ( establishment indoctrination ) to get it right.

[grandpa]

It just clicked as I finished the last post, you carryfast and Rjan are the same person? Sockpuppets? The same content, the same method of reply, the same focus on issues, the same factual mistakes … With a tag-team approach? Note that what I’ve just said are in question form as I obviously don’t have proof, but it’s a strong observation.

So, if you’re going to put your own views forward and explain the effects of cultural Marxism arising out if the EU, can you just make it one post please without all the usual distractions, poster focus and stick to the topic in your own words? Psst, a hint: don’t plagiarize or use google, I can spot it a mile off. I know it’s going to take you some time, so I’ll wait.

[carryfast]

Grandpa:
It just clicked as I finished the last post, you carryfast and Rjan are the same person? Sockpuppets? The same content, the same method of reply, the same focus on issues, the same factual mistakes … With a tag-team approach? Note that what I’ve just said are in question form as I obviously don’t have proof, but it’s a strong observation.

So, if you’re going to put your own views forward and explain the effects of cultural Marxism arising out if the EU, can you just make it one post please without all the usual distractions, poster focus and stick to the topic in your own words? Psst, a hint: don’t plagiarize or use google, I can spot it a mile off. I know it’s going to take you some time, so I’ll wait.

There are enough arguments between myself and Rjan on here to know that we are two very different diametrically opposed political entities.Rjan being closer to Callaghan’s/Jenkin’s vision of the definition of so called ‘left’ than Shore’s in that regard.Bringing us back to that clear division between the definitions of Supranationalist v Internationalist in which the latter by definition has to also be Nationalist for it to be Inter thereby explaining the split between Federalist pro EU labour v Eurosceptic ( Nationalist ) Labour.

As for you you’ve got the nerve to moan about our obviously very different and personally formulated views while admitting that you’re a product of the establishment indoctrination regime and it shows.From being an apologist for Thatcherite ideology,including trying to pretend that your idol didn’t know what the Treaty of Rome meant,while conveniently ignoring the fact that Powell obviously did.

To trying to even more laughably pass off China as a supposed former Communist state and having never been a Marxist one from day 1 to date.

On that note my conclusion is that Shore,like Benn and myself were Nationalists.Which by definition means they couldn’t have been Socialists.Because Socialists believe in an ideology which transcends the idea of the Nation State to the point of them therefore being Supranationalist.While contrary to Rjan’s ideas mine are that Fordist Capitalism is the best system.While Rjan believes that Soviet Socialism,in the form of the Soviet Union,was the better superior model,than both Kennedy’s US economic model,and a Europe made up of Sovereign Nation States.As opposed to Shore’s and Benn’s,by definition Nationalist,vision of a Europe based on the co operation between sovereign Nation sates when it’s in our interests to do so and the freedom and sovereignty to say no when it isn’t.Oh wait a Confederal Europe made up of its established sovereign states would obviously throw a spanner in the works of both Chinese plans for world ■■■■■■■■■■ based on Marxist ideology,which you deny,and US Federalism which hijacked the original US constitution.

So there we have it a three way argument between ironically Rjan’s naive support of Socialism when it’s clearly the problem not the solution.While I’ve got you sussed as just another exploitative Chinese Commy/US alliance supporting shill along the lines of Reagan and Nixon and which,in my view,is what got Kennedy killed.On that note you did say that much of your background is linked with far Eastern politics,which is obviously dominated by Chinese Communist interests and you obviously also have a liking for Thatcherite ideology using all the usual lies to back your support of her.Just as Deng thought that,like Reagan,Thatcher was a person with who he could do ‘business’.Business in this case being the use of exploited cheap Commy labour to infiltrate and wage economic warfare on the west.Cultural Marxism indeed.

Feel free to show any views anywhere which I could have supposedly plagiarised to formulate my views on all that other than my own.

[rjan]

Grandpa:
It just clicked as I finished the last post, you carryfast and Rjan are the same person? Sockpuppets? The same content, the same method of reply, the same focus on issues, the same factual mistakes … With a tag-team approach? Note that what I’ve just said are in question form as I obviously don’t have proof, but it’s a strong observation.

Your problem is assuming you’re the only driver here who also knows a thing or two.

Think about it. You’re on a forum telling an ex-teacher in political science that your opinion is right and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? YOU want to address me on political science?

You seem rather surprised to hear that the answer to that is yes.

What originally drew me in was the assertion that Marxism had moved on from class and into culture. That raises an eyebrow, because we certainly haven’t moved on from class society (although for a while we seem to have moved on from working class solidarity), and the concept of class is fundamental to, and interwoven throughout, Marxist theory.

And I’ve asked you to account for that. I’ve read what you’ve posted. I might be the only person to have actually read your paper - probably one amongst only a limited number here anyway. And I still see no justification.

It is true that Gramsci wrote of the ruling class maintaining their position through influence of dominant ideology and culture, and not simply through the mailed fist. But he clearly accepts the existence of the oppressive ruling class who use those means to maintain themselves. Class (as understood from a Marxist analysis) remains central in Gramsci’s approach.

Where is class in your analysis? I can roughly follow in your thinking the implied allegation that there exist a small cadre of intellectuals or revolutionaries in society (the “cultural Marxists”) who are trying to overthrow it and replace it wrongheadedly with a society run on different terms. But what means are they using to do this? Well, if you were approaching it from the Gramscian direction, you would say they are using the same means as the ruling class use to maintain their own oppressive position over the working class.

But you argue that the ruling class don’t exist anymore, and also that the “cultural Marxists” themselves have moved on from class. So where is the Marxism in this theory of yours? Where even does Gramsci come in, when he wrote about how the ruling class, the rich and powerful, maintain their power?

Not only do I say that you don’t know what you’re talking about, ex-teacher or no, but that your real agenda for spouting all this nonsense is simply to propagate the smear phrase “cultural Marxism”, when even you acknowledge at unguarded moments in your writings that it has nothing to do with Marxism.

And don’t pretend to be a friend of the working man. I spoke earlier about how the reason the London financier is rich and the London toilet cleaner is poor, is because the financier charges too much interest, spends too much on wine, and is charged too little for having their toilets cleaned. The implication being that if he charges a little less in interest, spends a little less on wine, and pays a little more for cleaning services, then that redresses the problem.

But like any right-winger, you’re not willing to have a situation in which the rich person isn’t permitted to exploit the working person by charging high and paying low.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
But like any right-winger, you’re not willing to have a situation in which the rich person isn’t permitted to exploit the working person by charging high and paying low.

Firstly there is no evidence that Socialism and Marxism is the solution to that but there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that Fordist principle type Capitalism is and Socialism isn’t.To the point where the some are more equal than others traits of Socialist ideology referred to by Orwell are actually closer to those of the Thatcherite principles which you’re referring to,than Kennedy’s 1960’s America.As we’ve seen in the ongoing alliance between Reaganomics and Dengist Communism.

On that note at least you and Grandpa seem to actually be in a flawed agreement that China is following a Capitalist line,rather than the inherently degenerate and corrupt ideology rightly referred to by Orwell.The difference obviously being that Capitalism is flexible whereas Socialism is all about a reactive ideology that,even worse than the wrong type of Capitalism,not only thrives on exactly the same type of inequalities,but also needs to maintain those inequalities to maintain its raison d’etre.Not to mention keeping the good life going for exactly the same type of elites who consider themselves to be more equal than the rest,while telling the brainwashed proletariate that it’s good for them.

[grandpa]

Re: Rjan/Carryfast.

you read the paper, but didn’t understand it and it’s embarrassing to hear you critique something you know little about and understand even less. From your first paragraph you state:

‘What originally drew me in was the assertion that Marxism had moved on from class and into culture. That raises an eyebrow, because we certainly haven’t moved on from class society …’

It’s called cultural Marxism because it moved from class to culture. It’s not a trick question, the answer is in the title. There isn’t just one form of Marxism, you could be a Trotskyist, or maybe a Maoist, or a cultural Marxist and they’re all derivatives of Marxism.

Stop pretending Rjan/Carryfast, you didn’t even know who Gramsci was and if I’d have mentioned the ‘Frankfurt School’ you’d have said it was a grammar school near Wimbledon! You’re not meant to understand the link, it wasn’t written for you but as an academic explanation that you might gain some knowledge from. You’re stuck on the move from class to culture? OK, read page vii The Frankfurt School of Social Chaos. It’s explained on one page. Gramsci found the answer as to why the revolution wasn’t spreading in Europe and the answer was destroy western values through culture. Hence cultural Marxism.

I’m not a friend of the working man? I am a working man. The reason the financier earns a lot more than the cleaner is because he has the knowledge and skills to do that. It’s why a HGV driver also earns more than the cleaner and why you’d charge me high if you sold me your car so you could make a profit from it. The reason you don’t understand anything is because you’re stuck in a 1980s Thatcher and Scargill class war time warp. You can’t write anything yourself and when you try to debate it comes out as rubbish and that’s not just from me, that’s right across the forum Rjan/Carryfast.

‘Your problem is assuming you’re the only driver here who also knows a thing or two.’ Well, as an ex-teacher I probably do know more about political science. There may well be someone who can give me a run for my money, but you’re not one of them. For all your supposed knowledge, you couldn’t even write a short piece on cultural Marxism.

[rjan]

Grandpa:
Re: Rjan/Carryfast.

It’s rather funny that you’re continuing to conflate us.

you read the paper, but didn’t understand it and it’s embarrassing to hear you critique something you know little about and understand even less. From your first paragraph you state:

‘What originally drew me in was the assertion that Marxism had moved on from class and into culture. That raises an eyebrow, because we certainly haven’t moved on from class society …’

It’s called cultural Marxism because it moved from class to culture. It’s not a trick question, the answer is in the title. There isn’t just one form of Marxism, you could be a Trotskyist, or maybe a Maoist, or a cultural Marxist and they’re all derivatives of Marxism.

I accept Trotsky and Mao had a Marxist influence. The question is how “cultural Marxism” is derived from Marxism - I say there isn’t any link at all.

You don’t seem to grasp that class is not something to which a Marxist tool is applied, and we can just as easily apply that tool to culture instead of class.

Class is the central concept in Marxist theory - the existence of two main classes, one the capitalist class who live off profits, and the other the working class who are exploited by the fact of their doing the work but not being paid its full value.

What would it mean to substitute culture into this Marxist framework? Who or what group comprises the capitalist culture? Who or what group comprises the “working culture” that is exploited because it does all the work but isn’t properly paid for it? I submit this analogy is a nonsense.

I understand the faint analogy you draw between oppressive and oppressed groups.

But workers in Marxist theory are not merely oppressed, they are exploited, which makes the exploiter dependent upon them for the fruits of his exploitation. An analogy is the difference between the monkey in the tree and the cow in the pen - the monkey is often oppressed but he is not significantly exploited, whereas the farm animal is exploited intensely.

Even if male chauvinists, racists, homophobes, and so on, are being “oppressed” to the extent they aren’t themselves allowed to attack or denigrate the people they don’t like, it is only “oppression” to the same degree that animal cruelty laws oppress the irresponsible dog owner. Nor does the dog become a “cultural Marxist”, or an exploiter of his human master, when he bites back.

So it’s not clear how a Marxist analysis applies to any of this.

Stop pretending Rjan/Carryfast, you didn’t even know who Gramsci was and if I’d have mentioned the ‘Frankfurt School’ you’d have said it was a grammar school near Wimbledon!

I’ll be perfectly frank, I’d heard of Gramsci before, but I had to go off and read what he had said before I came back to you on him. But there was nothing remarkable discovered in the process.

You’re not meant to understand the link, it wasn’t written for you but as an academic explanation that you might gain some knowledge from.

The problem is you’ve been challenged on the explanation.

You’re stuck on the move from class to culture? OK, read page vii The Frankfurt School of Social Chaos. It’s explained on one page. Gramsci found the answer as to why the revolution wasn’t spreading in Europe and the answer was destroy western values through culture. Hence cultural Marxism.

But the cultural values to be undermined, in that view, are the cultural values of the capitalist oppressors, which the capitalist use to oppress the working class. So far so Marxist.

It is implied that the capitalists have already colonised all institutions and cultural aspects of society to serve their purposes in reproducing a culture amongst the working class that is compatible with capitalist exploitation.

Note that the use of this method of cultural engineering would not be unique to the Marxists who seek to overthrow capitalism. It is apparently an innovation of the capitalists themselves use this method to sustain capitalism. The reason revolution has not occurred, it is argued, is because the revolutionaries have overlooked this prop which holds capitalism up.

But your argument was that these “cultural Marxists” have jettisoned class. So where does that leave us? Who are they fighting (even in their own terms) if not the capitalist class? And if their method is found to be effective, does that not suggest the capitalists would also be engaged in this harmful cultural engineering?

I’m not a friend of the working man? I am a working man. The reason the financier earns a lot more than the cleaner is because he has the knowledge and skills to do that.

And who says that only those with unusual skills should have a decent living? Why should the cleaner earn a pittance just because the financier can understand how to clean toilets, but doesn’t in fact do so?

It’s why a HGV driver also earns more than the cleaner and why you’d charge me high if you sold me your car so you could make a profit from it. The reason you don’t understand anything is because you’re stuck in a 1980s Thatcher and Scargill class war time warp. You can’t write anything yourself and when you try to debate it comes out as rubbish and that’s not just from me, that’s right across the forum Rjan/Carryfast.

But to sell you a car high presupposes that I have a car, you don’t, and you need one which you can only get from me. You aren’t going to buy high if I have nothing to sell, if you already have one, if you don’t need one, or if you can do better by other means (for example building your own).

‘Your problem is assuming you’re the only driver here who also knows a thing or two.’ Well, as an ex-teacher I probably do know more about political science. There may well be someone who can give me a run for my money, but you’re not one of them. For all your supposed knowledge, you couldn’t even write a short piece on cultural Marxism.

I suppose we could assume that the toilet cleaner who is an ex-financier, also knows more about finance than the average toilet cleaner!

[carryfast]

Grandpa:
Re: Rjan/Carryfast.

you read the paper, but didn’t understand it and it’s embarrassing to hear you critique something you know little about and understand even less. From your first paragraph you state:

‘What originally drew me in was the assertion that Marxism had moved on from class and into culture. That raises an eyebrow, because we certainly haven’t moved on from class society …’

It’s called cultural Marxism because it moved from class to culture. It’s not a trick question, the answer is in the title. There isn’t just one form of Marxism, you could be a Trotskyist, or maybe a Maoist, or a cultural Marxist and they’re all derivatives of Marxism.

Stop pretending Rjan/Carryfast, you didn’t even know who Gramsci was and if I’d have mentioned the ‘Frankfurt School’ you’d have said it was a grammar school near Wimbledon! You’re not meant to understand the link, it wasn’t written for you but as an academic explanation that you might gain some knowledge from. You’re stuck on the move from class to culture? OK, read page vii The Frankfurt School of Social Chaos. It’s explained on one page. Gramsci found the answer as to why the revolution wasn’t spreading in Europe and the answer was destroy western values through culture. Hence cultural Marxism.

I’m not a friend of the working man? I am a working man. The reason the financier earns a lot more than the cleaner is because he has the knowledge and skills to do that. It’s why a HGV driver also earns more than the cleaner and why you’d charge me high if you sold me your car so you could make a profit from it. The reason you don’t understand anything is because you’re stuck in a 1980s Thatcher and Scargill class war time warp. You can’t write anything yourself and when you try to debate it comes out as rubbish and that’s not just from me, that’s right across the forum Rjan/Carryfast.

‘Your problem is assuming you’re the only driver here who also knows a thing or two.’ Well, as an ex-teacher I probably do know more about political science. There may well be someone who can give me a run for my money, but you’re not one of them. For all your supposed knowledge, you couldn’t even write a short piece on cultural Marxism.

Firstly I’ve never liked big headed acedemics and especially the type of metaphorical women’s ginitalia who call themelves zb ‘teachers’.So no I can’t speak for Rjan because I definitely ain’t Rjan.Which true to form shows the credibility of all the rest of your bollox.

So maybe you should go and ask for all your tuition fees to be refunded.Because as a thick truck driver who takes pride in having left school ( at least when I was actually there and not at home watching afternoon tele or out and about sitting in the Sun ) without subjecting myself to all the bs establishment brainwashing that you’ve obviously swallowed hook line and bleedin sinker.At least I’ve taught myself the difference between Supranational v International and the fact that Thatcher knew exactly what the treaty of Rome meant just as Powell ( and Shore and Benn ) did.Also that the Chinese are a bunch of deluded Marxist tossers hell bent on world ■■■■■■■■■■ at the expense of those like the ones they murdered in Tianenmen Square etc whether under Mao,Deng or Jumping Jack Xao.Allied to whatever type of supposed Capitalism it is that your mates Thatcher and Reagan had in mind for us.On that note your origins or at least sympathies seem to be closer to the zb Yangtse than the Thames.Remember the Amethyst.

As for selling a car it’s obvious that,like every exploitative commy or Thatcherite,you apply double standards,regarding the right to make a ‘profit’ when it comes to the lowest employee wanting to sell the fewest hours and/or amount of work for the highest price rather than the top businessman.

As Scargill and Kennedy proved Capitalism can be ■■■■■ when it’s done right,for those with your hypocritical elitist ideas.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
But your argument was that these “cultural Marxists” have jettisoned class. So where does that leave us? Who are they fighting (even in their own terms) if not the capitalist class? And if their method is found to be effective, does that not suggest the capitalists would also be engaged in this harmful cultural engineering?

I’m not a friend of the working man? I am a working man. The reason the financier earns a lot more than the cleaner is because he has the knowledge and skills to do that.

And who says that only those with unusual skills should have a decent living? Why should the cleaner earn a pittance just because the financier can understand how to clean toilets, but doesn’t in fact do so?

It’s why a HGV driver also earns more than the cleaner and why you’d charge me high if you sold me your car so you could make a profit from it. The reason you don’t understand anything is because you’re stuck in a 1980s Thatcher and Scargill class war time warp. You can’t write anything yourself and when you try to debate it comes out as rubbish and that’s not just from me, that’s right across the forum Rjan/Carryfast.

But to sell you a car high presupposes that I have a car, you don’t, and you need one which you can only get from me. You aren’t going to buy high if I have nothing to sell, if you already have one, if you don’t need one, or if you can do better by other means (for example building your own).

‘Your problem is assuming you’re the only driver here who also knows a thing or two.’ Well, as an ex-teacher I probably do know more about political science. There may well be someone who can give me a run for my money, but you’re not one of them. For all your supposed knowledge, you couldn’t even write a short piece on cultural Marxism.

I suppose we could assume that the toilet cleaner who is an ex-financier, also knows more about finance than the average toilet cleaner!

Or the toilet cleaner who just couldn’t be bothered to get rich by gambling with other people’s money.

As for Grandpa’s argument.It’s more likely that his agenda is all about using it as a diversion from the fact that Marxism and the wrong type of Capitalism have actually created an unholy alliance.Based on a mutual exploitative interest and Kennedy had sussed it before it had even taken off.

While those with your naive ideas haven’t even realised yet that Socialism is a malignant exploitative ideology at least as bad as that worst type of corrupt Capitalism and therefore haven’t even realised that there is a mutual interest there.Let alone that the alliance and the the hybrid in question has already taken root long ago seeded by the double dealing between Nixon and then Reagan and Deng Xiaoping.Having first got rid of the Kennedys to provide the right growing climate.

[franglais]

Rjan:

Franglais:

Rjan:
…

Sorry, yes rambling away on a Saturday evening.
.
And I wasn’t accusing you of offering simplistic solutions, but trying to say their are dangers in looking at just one aspect of any problem, and making too much of that.

Is that just a general point (which seems reasonable enough), or are you putting it as a rebuke to something I’ve previously said where I considered something too narrowly? If so, which previous statement are you addressing?

I provided links so you can see that inflation isn’t accounted for at all. I was Only using those figures to compare gross average wage rises in Poland and UK. Nothing to do with anything else, just that one narrow point. I’m not suggesting that is the only relevant point, but the differences are striking.

It may not be striking at all if the inflation rate in Poland is running at around 400% over the similar period. It is said the cost of a great many basic things have increased in Eastern Europe, including housing.

The only thing that really counts is real-terms wages - otherwise you’d be saying the Turkish worker in the 90s saw wages rise many-fold, when in fact they were reduced to penury by high inflation and the currency was eventually replaced. The cash rises were merely a consequence of inflation.

And the definition of “real-terms” can be hotly contested. Household earnings may increase in real-terms relative to consumer prices, but if it is only because both parents work, and now have the cost of additional cars and fuel, childcare costs, elderly care costs, and work effort has obviously increased, then obviously that is not an improvement in standard of living - the unit costs of cars, fuel, nurseries, and retirement homes, may cost exactly the same as before, but working people then have to consume more of them whereas previously they could do without (and avoid paying the capitalist his cut of every market transaction). Working class women, particularly, have fared extremely badly.

It’s plausible and consistent with both principle and anecdote to argue that the worker in Poland has seen larger wage rises than the worker in Britain. But the statistics you quote do nothing further to establish the fact beyond what is vaguely known already from anecdote and principle.

The ascendancy of the far right in Eastern Europe strongly suggests to me that any cash increase in wages has been accompanied by the introduction of other deteriorations for which wages have not compensated, at least for a large minority.

Generally speaking, the only time wage rises are considered beneficial is when they are synonymous with an increase in workers’ social, economic, and political power - changes in which are often difficult to quantify statistically and in full. If you increase a man’s wages only by bringing him to situation where the whip is cracked against him and he is powerless to resist, he does not feel better off for it, no matter even whether he can afford a solid gold toilet bowl at home as a result, because the metal is cold comfort for experiencing a daily social life of powerlessness and degradation and the risk that he can have it all taken away by the slightest defiance of the powers that be.

That is the great story behind the Tories’ full employment, not that it reflects a hot economy, but that they have eroded people’s power to refuse poorly paid or conditioned work, and workers are working only with extreme begrudgement whilst their pensions are taken away, their job security is taken away, their security of tenure at home is taken away, and their free leisure time is taken away by increasing hours, longer commutes, “flexible” working, and the daily labour of child-rearing and home-keeping on top of a day’s employed labour.

Because none of us have the expertise or the time to research everything to the n.th degree we must trust others to an extent. But we should never trust any :“expert” who says “it’s true because I’m an expert and I’m telling you it’s so”. That is the way of “priesthoods” and the inner circle. All true experts will explain how they arrive at their conclusions and should be open to questioning and criticism. Peer reviewing is invaluable. Checking sources is always a good thing.
Click on links in articles and sometimes the chain will lead to a reputable source like the Lancet or New Scientist (neither perfect unfortunately but normally solid), sometimes to a dodgy, privately funded, politically motivated organization.
.
And this is before we go into “balance” of reporting in news sites, on the BBC etc.
FWIW I think the BBC try hard to be honest, but sometimes leans over backwards to be fair. (Wakefield MMR) Their reporting of climate change was going in that direction but not so much now.
Sorry, wandering off again.

I agree with all those points. The main problem today is the degree to which “expert” opinion is frequently contradicting, or at least striking a harsh chord with, people’s lived experience.

Public “experts” are often a professional class, a worker aristocracy, who frequently don’t live in the real world anymore, or at the very least are selected for their disinclination to make any statement that challenges the status quo or their expertise is directed only about tasks that don’t risk challenge to the status quo.

R:“Is that just a general point (which seems reasonable enough), or are you putting it as a rebuke to something I’ve previously said where I considered something too narrowly?”
Yep, just a general point, not directed at you particularly.

R:“Public “experts” are often a professional class, a worker aristocracy, who frequently don’t live in the real world anymore, or at the very least are selected for their disinclination to make any statement that challenges the status quo or their expertise is directed only about tasks that don’t risk challenge to the status quo.”
I would say be aware of who is reporting any experts. News sites with an agenda will always find someone to make the story they want to publish. Remember MRSA? And Dr Chris Malyszewicz PhD?

And never take anything on trust…even some .edu sites gained their .edu status long ago and may not qualify for it now. There is even one that is a for profit organisation. It describes itself as “open access” and doesn`t peer review before publication. It publishes online any articles submitted to it without any verification of content, and will bump articles up in exchange for cash.
“So, the paper that you are reading on diabetes and elderly patients may have been written by a qualified physician, or it may have been written by Jerry who lives in the trailer park down the street and dropped out of school at age 17.”
chronicle.com/article/Schol … ize/235102
affiliateresources.org/acad … -scholars/
forbes.com/sites/drsarahbon … 899f432d62

Might not be the same league as Dr Gillian McKeith and Henrietta (RIP), but amusing none the less.

[grandpa]

Firstly I’ve never liked big headed acedemics and especially the type of metaphorical women’s ginitalia who call themelves zb ‘teachers’.So no I can’t speak for Rjan because I definitely ain’t Rjan.Which true to form shows the credibility of all the rest of your bollox.

So maybe you should go and ask for all your tuition fees to be refunded.Because as a thick truck driver who takes pride in having left school ( at least when I was actually there and not at home watching afternoon tele or out and about sitting in the Sun ) without subjecting myself to all the bs establishment brainwashing that you’ve obviously swallowed hook line and bleedin sinker.At least I’ve taught myself the difference between Supranational v International and the fact that Thatcher knew exactly what the treaty of Rome meant just as Powell ( and Shore and Benn ) did.Also that the Chinese are a bunch of deluded Marxist tossers hell bent on world ■■■■■■■■■■ at the expense of those like the ones they murdered in Tianenmen Square etc whether under Mao,Deng or Jumping Jack Xao.Allied to whatever type of supposed Capitalism it is that your mates Thatcher and Reagan had in mind for us.On that note your origins or at least sympathies seem to be closer to the zb Yangtse than the Thames.Remember the Amethyst.

As for selling a car it’s obvious that,like every exploitative commy or Thatcherite,you apply double standards,regarding the right to make a ‘profit’ when it comes to the lowest employee wanting to sell the fewest hours and/or amount of work for the highest price rather than the top businessman.

As Scargill and Kennedy proved Capitalism can be ■■■■■ when it’s done right,for those with your hypocritical elitist ideas.

Academics aren’t big headed, they just know more than you and if it wasn’t for teachers you wouldn’t be able to read or write. You didn’t teach yourself the difference between Supranational v International, google did and people like myself wrote the articles that taught you.

The Chinese are not ‘Marxist tossers’, they’re Maoist and your definition of ‘tossers’ is simply your usual personal opinions masquerading as facts. The Chinese have never dominated outside China itself.

Thatcher or Reagan were not my ‘mates’, I voted for neither of them.

Just when I thought you’d finally got it, you continue with nonsense, proving to me that there is something wrong with you. Carryfast/Rjan, I don’t want to keep rubbing in, but for all your bluster and pretend knowledge, you couldn’t even write a short essay on cultural Marxism.

I don’t want to engage in the same personal attacks you use, but I’d say you have some mental health problems and you can ignore the following question if you like, but are you autistic?