Brexiteers against free movement?

OUT OF HOURS BULLY'S TRUCKSTOP BAR (INTERACTIVE)
121

Grandpa:

The only people the EU is beneficial for are the politicians, corporations and bankers. It’s what the EU was designed for, a coup by the elite under an elite rule.

How credible can that statement be when you obviously think that Thatcher’s policies were the answer to the fact that the Labour Party was hijacked by Soviet Socialists you know like Callaghan and Jenkins who predictably supported Thatcher’s EEC ( EU ) campaign.( Nor am I one of the sheep who classes Scargill as part of that agenda ).Don’t ever remember him calling for a Bolshevik style revolution during the 1972 or 84 miners’ strikes.What I do remember is him calling for a fair wage increase in '72/3 and a stop to Brit miners and their pits being sold out to dumped foreign coal imports in '84.Both eventually proven right with us now being a net importer/dependent on imported energy supplies.

122

Grandpa:
Neither Norway nor Switzerland are in the EU

No but they are still subject to EU blackmail of trade for sovereignty especially in the case of free movement and EU immigration directives.

123

Carryfast:

Grandpa:

The only people the EU is beneficial for are the politicians, corporations and bankers. It’s what the EU was designed for, a coup by the elite under an elite rule.

How credible can that statement be when you obviously think that Thatcher’s policies were the answer to the fact that the Labour Party was hijacked by Soviet Socialists you know like Callaghan and Jenkins who predictably supported Thatcher’s EEC ( EU ) campaign.( Nor am I one of the sheep who classes Scargill as part of that agenda ).Don’t ever remember him calling for a Bolshevik style revolution during the 1972 or 84 miners’ strikes.What I do remember is him calling for a fair wage increase in '72/3 and a stop to Brit miners and their pits being sold out to dumped foreign coal imports in '84.Both eventually proven right with us now being a net importer/dependent on imported energy supplies.

I never mentioned Callaghan and Jenkins and we’re not talking about the EEC. You didn’t know that Scargill was a former communist? He joined the communist party in 1955. Many of the old former labour leadership were communists or supporters who disguised themselves hiding behind the labour party.

I never said I supported Thatcher. What I said was that she was extremely popular at one time and was voted in on three successive occasions after Labour’s hard swing to the left in the mid-70s. Since the 80s, Labour moved away from class and embraced Gramscian identity politics under cultural Marxism and the old class revolutionaries died out. Corbyn is one of the few remaining old class based socialists of that era – a disaster waiting to happen.

Just as an aside, name me one socialist country that didn’t end up as an economic basket case or where living standards rose for the general population. You can start with the Paris commune during the latter period of the 19th century and work your way through to current day Venezuela.

I have to add this Carryfast and it’s not personal, it’s just an observation. Having previously taught political science you are amongst the top end of low information, basic knowledge people that I’ve come across. It’s not a matter of opinion, you are on many posts simply factually incorrect. It’s no wonder the political elite managed to fool so many of the remainers. :open_mouth:

124

Grandpa:

Carryfast:

Grandpa:

The only people the EU is beneficial for are the politicians, corporations and bankers. It’s what the EU was designed for, a coup by the elite under an elite rule.

How credible can that statement be when you obviously think that Thatcher’s policies were the answer to the fact that the Labour Party was hijacked by Soviet Socialists you know like Callaghan and Jenkins who predictably supported Thatcher’s EEC ( EU ) campaign.( Nor am I one of the sheep who classes Scargill as part of that agenda ).Don’t ever remember him calling for a Bolshevik style revolution during the 1972 or 84 miners’ strikes.What I do remember is him calling for a fair wage increase in '72/3 and a stop to Brit miners and their pits being sold out to dumped foreign coal imports in '84.Both eventually proven right with us now being a net importer/dependent on imported energy supplies.

I never mentioned Callaghan and Jenkins and we’re not talking about the EEC. You didn’t know that Scargill was a former communist? He joined the communist party in 1955. Many of the old former labour leadership were communists or supporters who disguised themselves hiding behind the labour party.

I never said I supported Thatcher. What I said was that she was extremely popular at one time and was voted in on three successive occasions after Labour’s hard swing to the left in the mid-70s. Since the 80s, Labour moved away from class and embraced Gramscian identity politics under cultural Marxism and the old class revolutionaries died out. Corbyn is one of the few remaining old class based socialists of that era – a disaster waiting to happen.

Just as an aside, name me one socialist country that didn’t end up as an economic basket case or where living standards rose for the general population. You can start with the Paris commune during the latter period of the 19th century and work your way through to current day Venezuela.

I have to add this Carryfast and it’s not personal, it’s just an observation. Having previously taught political science you are amongst the top end of low information, basic knowledge people that I’ve come across. It’s not a matter of opinion, you are on many posts simply factually incorrect. It’s no wonder the political elite managed to fool so many of the remainers. :open_mouth:

Let’s get this right Scargill was a Communist who was moaning about imported coal taking out Brit miners’ jobs to the point of eventual closure of the Brit mining industry…Much of it being imported from Soviet controlled mining industries to the point where Russian etc workers were actually going against their own governments in the blacking of Russian/Polish coal exports to UK.While the biggest beneficiary of Thatcher’s/Reagan’s legacy is the Chinese Communist Party.Although it’s no surprise that you seem to have airbrushed out the fact that Spinelli’s ‘former’ Communist links seemed to have been no problem for those like Thatcher in supporting the treaty of Rome.Then you’ve got the nerve to say that it’s me who is factually incorrect.

On that note exactly where have I said that I support Socialism as opposed to Nationalism.The two ideologies being mutually exclusive also bearing in mind that Farage is no Nationalist being first and foremost a Conservative Party shill.

Make no mistake we are only in the EU because the Conservative Federalist Party took us into it and it was Thatcher who signed us up to the Single European Act and it was Major who signed us up to Maastricht and the EEC was/is exactly the same thing as the EU under the terms of the treaty of Rome stating ‘‘ever closer UNION’’.

There is more chance of the Labour Party eventually abandoning Socialism and turning towards Nationalism than the Cons ever abandoning Federalism and with it selling the country out to the lowest or highest bidder.

As for me I’m still undecided between English Democrats v Labour,assuming that Batten has really decided to walk away,but most definitely won’t be voting for Con trickster Farage.

125

Let’s get this right Scargill was a Communist who was moaning about imported coal taking out Brit miners’ jobs to the point of eventual closure of the Brit mining industry…Much of it being imported from Soviet controlled mining industries to the point where Russian etc workers were actually going against their own governments in the blacking of Russian/Polish coal exports to UK.While the biggest beneficiary of Thatcher’s/Reagan’s legacy is the Chinese Communist Party.Although it’s no surprise that you seem to have airbrushed out the fact that Spinelli’s ‘former’ Communist links seemed to have been no problem for those like Thatcher in supporting the treaty of Rome.Then you’ve got the nerve to say that it’s me who is factually incorrect.

On that note exactly where have I said that I support Socialism as opposed to Nationalism.The two ideologies being mutually exclusive also bearing in mind that Farage is no Nationalist being first and foremost a Conservative Party shill.

Make no mistake we are only in the EU because the Conservative Federalist Party took us into it and it was Thatcher who signed us up to the Single European Act and it was Major who signed us up to Maastricht and the EEC was/is exactly the same thing as the EU under the terms of the treaty of Rome stating ‘‘ever closer UNION’’.

There is more chance of the Labour Party eventually abandoning Socialism and turning towards Nationalism than the Cons ever abandoning Federalism and with it selling the country out to the lowest or highest bidder.

As for me I’m still undecided between English Democrats v Labour,assuming that Batten has really decided to walk away,but most definitely won’t be voting for Con trickster Farage.

No Carryfast, lets’ get what you said right. You talk of ‘Soviet socialists’ (Marxists), you don’t think Scargill was ‘part of that agenda’ and when you obviously look it up you can’t even admit you’re wrong when it’s proved to you. That’s your problem; you’re living in a bubble of subjective opinion. Half of what you state is opinion and the other half is just plain wrong. This is like explaining politics, economics and history to a 15 year old and even when you’re proved wrong you switch topics and ramble on.

On the subject of coal, Thatcher imported and stock piled Polish coal because she knew the miners under communist Scargill would strike and so when they did there were stock piles available. The mining industry was collapsing by the 80s due to cheap competition. If Britain still had a huge coal industry it would have been shut down years ago under the various clean air Acts, no matter what Thatcher did.

There’s no doubt that Thatcherism did immense damage to the communities that had built up around coal mining, steel and ship building, but it was inevitable. The British Empire had gone, the colonies weren’t supplying cheap raw materials that enable the industrial revolution and by the 80s Britain was a post-industrial society.

Again, Thatcher supported closer EEC ties; the EU didn’t even exist in her day.

What on earth has Thatcher and Reagan to do with the Chinese communist party? Thatcher came to power four years after Mao’s death. China was still an economic basket case. The reason for China’s meteoric rise to success was that after Mao’s death they abandoned socialist principles and embraced controlled capitalism.

It’s difficult to know what you are in your rambles, but your support of Scargill and anti-Thatcherism makes you more of a socialist than a nationalist. How can the Labour party ever be nationalist? International socialism and nationalism are complete opposites.

There’s no doubt that Farage is a conservative, but he’s not campaigning for party political values; he’s campaigning on single issue Brexit. Brexit cuts across political divides.

‘Make no mistake we are only in the EU because the Conservative Federalist Party took us into it …’ No Carryfast, the UK is not federalist or ever has been. The EU politicization started with Major and continued under Blair and Cameron and now May. All the main political party leaders are pro-European and have been for decades. That’s how the political elite managed to drag Britain and other countries into an EU dictatorship.

I don’t know how much of your nonsense I can take. :slight_smile:

126

Haha the miners strike, and before I’m jumped on for being incorrect Carryfast or Grandpa, my dad was a miner, his best mate was a bloke called Jimmy Hood, the right hand man of Arthur Scargill ( currently the leader of the SWP ). This is the reason why I’ve never voted Tory or Labour.
Thatcher wasn’t entirely to blame for the pits closing, Labour closed more pits prior to the Tories coming into power. The ECSC set out a policy that mines were in a state of decay, and stuck in Victorian times with health and safety, workers welfare and facilities. But this would be a massive cost to the government, something they couldn’t afford to justify.
This task was thrown at the Tories, but it wasn’t just British coalfields that were effected, the coalfields in France, Belgium and Germany came under fire many of them closing.
To update the coal industry best they could the Tories devised a plan, they work out the cost effectiveness of each pit, wether a more productive neighbouring pit could utilise the seams etc, this would reduce job losses best they could.
They offered a meeting with Scargill to put the plan forward, some pits were seen as a complete loss, but seams be used, some were seen as workable but should be sold and others could be upgraded with the money from the sold pits.
Scargill refused to listen, a complete and utter left wing ■■■■■■, he stated no pits would close, though he’d sat back and watched his beloved Labour close them.
There was no compromise, it was a case of rob Peter to pay Paul, and with Scargill refusing to budge she started to order the closure of the non viable pit, and with it began the miners strike.
Those pits stood unworked for over a year, build up of gases and flooding meant some would never be worked again, Scargills doing not Thatchers, either of them could have backed down and saved the coalfields but they didn’t.
When the steel workers threatened to support the miners, she warned that she’d had a knife at her throat once and wasn’t prepared for a second time, if they walked out she would close the steel works, they walked out and she kept her word.
Thatcher was prepared for a miners walkout, she had an ace up her sleeve in the form of coal from Poland.
After the War and nothing to do with the ECSC, Britain billed Poland for the planes, arms and equipment supplied to them during the war. Unable to repay a deal was established that a certain percentage of coal mined from the Polish coalfields would be sent to Britain, until the debt was repaid, Thatcher upped the quota and imported more.

It’s not fun standing in a line outside a miners welfare with your mum and brothers waiting for a food handout, while your dads on the lash with Hood and other union leaders

127

Well, I can’t speak for Carryfast, but I don’t think I ‘jump’ on anyone. :slight_smile: If we want to know where we are we have to retrace our steps and find out how we got there. The 50s and 60s were a blip. Europe in ruins, near full employment courtesy of the war dead an insurance based welfare society and the extremists stood no chance.

Change comes when countries go through a period of trauma and crisis. For example, it’s not a coincidence that the Soviet Union began after WW1, or the communists took over China after WW2. Likewise, that the socialist EU suddenly took off after the biggest recession in history.

The change to Britain began as the next post war generation came onto the labour market in the 70s. Couple that with the loss of its colonies and foreign competition and the Empire days were over. The changes were what allowed the left and people like Livingstone, Scargill and the Red Robbo’s to emerge. Scargill, like all the rest of the champagne socialists running the unions did very nicely out of it and still does.

Scargill was a product of his era and couldn’t exist today. The world has changed and neither could Thatcher. What’s happening now is a type of Euro communism using progressivism, an ideology that unites the left and right. The left get their socialist policies and the right get the authoritarianism. It’s why people now often say ‘it doesn’t matter who gets in, nothing changes.’ What H.G. Wells described as ‘liberal fascism’ after communism lost its appeal. That’s what the EU is. This is progressivism, a socialist manifesto under authoritarian rule.

https://hubpages.com/politics/The-Progressive-Movement

128

Grandpa:

Let’s get this right Scargill was a Communist who was moaning about imported coal taking out Brit miners’ jobs to the point of eventual closure of the Brit mining industry…Much of it being imported from Soviet controlled mining industries to the point where Russian etc workers were actually going against their own governments in the blacking of Russian/Polish coal exports to UK.While the biggest beneficiary of Thatcher’s/Reagan’s legacy is the Chinese Communist Party.Although it’s no surprise that you seem to have airbrushed out the fact that Spinelli’s ‘former’ Communist links seemed to have been no problem for those like Thatcher in supporting the treaty of Rome.Then you’ve got the nerve to say that it’s me who is factually incorrect.

On that note exactly where have I said that I support Socialism as opposed to Nationalism.The two ideologies being mutually exclusive also bearing in mind that Farage is no Nationalist being first and foremost a Conservative Party shill.

Make no mistake we are only in the EU because the Conservative Federalist Party took us into it and it was Thatcher who signed us up to the Single European Act and it was Major who signed us up to Maastricht and the EEC was/is exactly the same thing as the EU under the terms of the treaty of Rome stating ‘‘ever closer UNION’’.

There is more chance of the Labour Party eventually abandoning Socialism and turning towards Nationalism than the Cons ever abandoning Federalism and with it selling the country out to the lowest or highest bidder.

As for me I’m still undecided between English Democrats v Labour,assuming that Batten has really decided to walk away,but most definitely won’t be voting for Con trickster Farage.

No Carryfast, lets’ get what you said right. You talk of ‘Soviet socialists’ (Marxists), you don’t think Scargill was ‘part of that agenda’ and when you obviously look it up you can’t even admit you’re wrong when it’s proved to you. That’s your problem; you’re living in a bubble of subjective opinion. Half of what you state is opinion and the other half is just plain wrong. This is like explaining politics, economics and history to a 15 year old and even when you’re proved wrong you switch topics and ramble on.

On the subject of coal, Thatcher imported and stock piled Polish coal because she knew the miners under communist Scargill would strike and so when they did there were stock piles available. The mining industry was collapsing by the 80s due to cheap competition. If Britain still had a huge coal industry it would have been shut down years ago under the various clean air Acts, no matter what Thatcher did.

There’s no doubt that Thatcherism did immense damage to the communities that had built up around coal mining, steel and ship building, but it was inevitable. The British Empire had gone, the colonies weren’t supplying cheap raw materials that enable the industrial revolution and by the 80s Britain was a post-industrial society.

Again, Thatcher supported closer EEC ties; the EU didn’t even exist in her day.

What on earth has Thatcher and Reagan to do with the Chinese communist party? Thatcher came to power four years after Mao’s death. China was still an economic basket case. The reason for China’s meteoric rise to success was that after Mao’s death they abandoned socialist principles and embraced controlled capitalism.

It’s difficult to know what you are in your rambles, but your support of Scargill and anti-Thatcherism makes you more of a socialist than a nationalist. How can the Labour party ever be nationalist? International socialism and nationalism are complete opposites.

There’s no doubt that Farage is a conservative, but he’s not campaigning for party political values; he’s campaigning on single issue Brexit. Brexit cuts across political divides.

‘Make no mistake we are only in the EU because the Conservative Federalist Party took us into it …’ No Carryfast, the UK is not federalist or ever has been. The EU politicization started with Major and continued under Blair and Cameron and now May. All the main political party leaders are pro-European and have been for decades. That’s how the political elite managed to drag Britain and other countries into an EU dictatorship.

I don’t know how much of your nonsense I can take. :slight_smile:

If Scargill was a supposed Communist why would he have wanted to defend the Brit mining industry against being destroyed by coal imports from at the time Soviet controlled economies.While why would the Soviet government have wanted to help Thatcher in that.As opposed to Scargill by blocking the shipments.

You really think that the Chinese Communist Party just calls itself that for fun.

You don’t believe that Thatcher and Reagan were shills who handed over the western economies to the benefit of said Chinese Communism.

My support of Scargill just makes me a Nationalist who believes in putting our own industries first and paying our own workers a decent wage to work in them.Just like Shore was in trying to stop Heath and Thatcher selling out the country to Communist Spinelli’s vision of an EU.It was clear enough for him to see what the treaty of Rome was all about so why not zb Thatcher.To which all you can do is continue with your same bs excuses that the treaty of Rome ( or Single European Act or Maastricht ) wasn’t the same thing.

Then you laughably say that the UK isn’t a Federation.Really so what does the ‘Union’ flag mean and define the word ‘Unionist’ within the Con Party title ? and what was the Acts of Union between England and Scotland of 1706/07 all about and what was the war of UK Federal aggression in Ireland all about resulting in the Anglo Irish treaty ( Irish secession. From the UK Union which by definition means Federation ). :unamused:

129

Grumpy Dad:
Haha the miners strike, and before I’m jumped on for being incorrect Carryfast or Grandpa, my dad was a miner, his best mate was a bloke called Jimmy Hood, the right hand man of Arthur Scargill ( currently the leader of the SWP ). This is the reason why I’ve never voted Tory or Labour.
Thatcher wasn’t entirely to blame for the pits closing, Labour closed more pits prior to the Tories coming into power. The ECSC set out a policy that mines were in a state of decay, and stuck in Victorian times with health and safety, workers welfare and facilities. But this would be a massive cost to the government, something they couldn’t afford to justify.
This task was thrown at the Tories, but it wasn’t just British coalfields that were effected, the coalfields in France, Belgium and Germany came under fire many of them closing.
To update the coal industry best they could the Tories devised a plan, they work out the cost effectiveness of each pit, wether a more productive neighbouring pit could utilise the seams etc, this would reduce job losses best they could.
They offered a meeting with Scargill to put the plan forward, some pits were seen as a complete loss, but seams be used, some were seen as workable but should be sold and others could be upgraded with the money from the sold pits.
Scargill refused to listen, a complete and utter left wing ■■■■■■, he stated no pits would close, though he’d sat back and watched his beloved Labour close them.
There was no compromise, it was a case of rob Peter to pay Paul, and with Scargill refusing to budge she started to order the closure of the non viable pit, and with it began the miners strike.
Those pits stood unworked for over a year, build up of gases and flooding meant some would never be worked again, Scargills doing not Thatchers, either of them could have backed down and saved the coalfields but they didn’t.
When the steel workers threatened to support the miners, she warned that she’d had a knife at her throat once and wasn’t prepared for a second time, if they walked out she would close the steel works, they walked out and she kept her word.
Thatcher was prepared for a miners walkout, she had an ace up her sleeve in the form of coal from Poland.
After the War and nothing to do with the ECSC, Britain billed Poland for the planes, arms and equipment supplied to them during the war. Unable to repay a deal was established that a certain percentage of coal mined from the Polish coalfields would be sent to Britain, until the debt was repaid, Thatcher upped the quota and imported more.

It’s not fun standing in a line outside a miners welfare with your mum and brothers waiting for a food handout, while your dads on the lash with Hood and other union leaders

Didn’t Scargill actually say that Thatcher and her American hatchet man intended to close ‘ALL’ the pits.Remind us what happened next and how many mines we’ve got left open now.

I’m guessing you saw this.

bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0845r0t

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m sure I saw a slogan written as they walked away for the last time which said Scargill was right. :unamused:

130

Scargill was a product of the 70’s you’re correct, and as much as I hate the man I also have to admit and acknowledge he had something that many people failed to achieve and that was the ability to motivate people and get them to fight for what they believe.
The miners were beginning to realise there was no hope with Gormley after several ignored ballots, and Scargill had already won favour from the miners with his attendance at the Lofthouse Colliery incident, and a strike which started in Yorkshire but other pits followed, although he wasn’t the leader of the NUM at the time.
Today there would be no place for him as a union leader, it was the miners strike and it’s failure to achieve anything that saw the British workforce lose faith in trade unions. But the Scargill militancy is alive and well, it’s featured in most daily tabloids and sits in Parliament, Jeremy Corbyn.
Both Scargill and Hood went on to follow their socialist agendas but in politics, Scargill founded the Socialist Labour Party and Hood is leader of the Socialist Workers Party ( ties with Corbyn )
Although the NUM and Scargill failed, Thatcher never had any following from the miners who didn’t strike, they wasn’t rebelling on her behalf, but because they were fighting for their jobs and against Scargills leadership.
Joe Gormley had noticed the growing militancy within the NUM and is rumoured to have notified special branch, there’s some truth as undercover coppers were sent in and infiltrated the union meetings, this was confirmed with the police being able to be one step ahead at flying picket targets in the last few months of the strike.
As for Thatcher although she was initially for the EEC, it does seem odd that the key industries that saw us enter into the ECSC she destroyed.

131

Whether Scargill realized it or not, he was at the back end of class based Marxism, which was changing into cultural Marxism; the identity politics which we see today focused on minorities. He wasn’t the only one, the 70s saw the radicals and political activists come out in droves and although looking back they assume a sort of Robin Hood notoriety fighting for the common man, they all had a political agenda.

It wasn’t that Thatcher destroyed the industries, they were already lame ducks, but she was the one who finally had to say the jobs for life in loss making nationalized industries was over. All Empires eventually collapse and one of the telling signs is industrial decline. The Soviet Union went through it, the US is going through it now and the EU will go the same way. Britain joined the EEC because it involved a trading partnership where it was able to sell what it had in a world suddenly turned competitive, whereas before it wouldn’t have needed to.

Britain had industries that reflected an industrial era in which it had unlimited sources of raw materials and cheap labour. Take that away and we can no longer compete against countries in the East, or even East European ones. I’m not a supporter of Thatcher, or any of the mainstream, but what she did was inevitable and if it hadn’t been her, someone else would have had to do it. Conversely, Scargill and his comrades made a last ditch socialist stand that argued workers came before economics.

132

Grandpa:
Whether Scargill realized it or not, he was at the back end of class based Marxism, which was changing into cultural Marxism; the identity politics which we see today focused on minorities.

If it’s not class-based Marxism then it isn’t Marxism! Class is the foundation of any Marxism.

As for “identity politics”, what is the problem? Is it really so bad that women can work nowadays, men can marry, and you can’t throw a banana at a black man in the street?

It wasn’t that Thatcher destroyed the industries, they were already lame ducks, but she was the one who finally had to say the jobs for life in loss making nationalized industries was over. All Empires eventually collapse and one of the telling signs is industrial decline. The Soviet Union went through it, the US is going through it now and the EU will go the same way. Britain joined the EEC because it involved a trading partnership where it was able to sell what it had in a world suddenly turned competitive, whereas before it wouldn’t have needed to.

Britain had industries that reflected an industrial era in which it had unlimited sources of raw materials and cheap labour. Take that away and we can no longer compete against countries in the East, or even East European ones. I’m not a supporter of Thatcher, or any of the mainstream, but what she did was inevitable and if it hadn’t been her, someone else would have had to do it. Conversely, Scargill and his comrades made a last ditch socialist stand that argued workers came before economics.

The “cheap labour” of empire was almost exclusively agricultural, and that hasn’t changed appreciably in the modern market (food is still in large part produced by cheap foreign labour). Access to raw materials has changed, but again not radically.

What has changed predominantly is simply that the economy has been reorganised so that we buy much more than we make, and what we do make is predominantly third-rate with little value.

A minority of employees in financial and high-tech sectors are probably still doing alright, but skills training and work-based education has mostly evaporated, few taxes are paid proportionally, and the rest of the economy is arranged so that workers who serve this sector of clientele (in one way or another) cannot get their just deserts in wages. The average London financier will blow thousands on wine in a restaurant, the product of hoarding by speculators with large wine cellars, whilst having his toilets cleaned for £5 an hour.

The rich have been huge beneficiaries of the offshoring of production and investment - the richest today, live a richer life than 40 years ago. And the reason the rich live a richer life, is because the working man lives a poorer life.

There isn’t any more magic to it than that, and people like yourself should stop pretending there has been any great economic catastrophe or reduction of standing of the Western economies, such as justifies why we can’t have secure jobs, houses, redundancy money, or a modest pension in old age.

133

Rjan:

Grandpa:
Whether Scargill realized it or not, he was at the back end of class based Marxism, which was changing into cultural Marxism; the identity politics which we see today focused on minorities.

If it’s not class-based Marxism then it isn’t Marxism! Class is the foundation of any Marxism.

As for “identity politics”, what is the problem? Is it really so bad that women can work nowadays, men can marry, and you can’t throw a banana at a black man in the street?

It wasn’t that Thatcher destroyed the industries, they were already lame ducks, but she was the one who finally had to say the jobs for life in loss making nationalized industries was over. All Empires eventually collapse and one of the telling signs is industrial decline. The Soviet Union went through it, the US is going through it now and the EU will go the same way. Britain joined the EEC because it involved a trading partnership where it was able to sell what it had in a world suddenly turned competitive, whereas before it wouldn’t have needed to.

Britain had industries that reflected an industrial era in which it had unlimited sources of raw materials and cheap labour. Take that away and we can no longer compete against countries in the East, or even East European ones. I’m not a supporter of Thatcher, or any of the mainstream, but what she did was inevitable and if it hadn’t been her, someone else would have had to do it. Conversely, Scargill and his comrades made a last ditch socialist stand that argued workers came before economics.

The “cheap labour” of empire was almost exclusively agricultural, and that hasn’t changed appreciably in the modern market (food is still in large part produced by cheap foreign labour). Access to raw materials has changed, but again not radically.

What has changed predominantly is simply that the economy has been reorganised so that we buy much more than we make, and what we do make is predominantly third-rate with little value.

A minority of employees in financial and high-tech sectors are probably still doing alright, but skills training and work-based education has mostly evaporated, few taxes are paid proportionally, and the rest of the economy is arranged so that workers who serve this sector of clientele (in one way or another) cannot get their just deserts in wages. The average London financier will blow thousands on wine in a restaurant, the product of hoarding by speculators with large wine cellars, whilst having his toilets cleaned for £5 an hour.

The rich have been huge beneficiaries of the offshoring of production and investment - the richest today, live a richer life than 40 years ago. And the reason the rich live a richer life, is because the working man lives a poorer life.

There isn’t any more magic to it than that, and people like yourself should stop pretending there has been any great economic catastrophe or reduction of standing of the Western economies, such as justifies why we can’t have secure jobs, houses, redundancy money, or a modest pension in old age.

Sorry Rjan, class was the original Marxist foundation, but many years ago a theorist named Gramsci discovered that Marx got it wrong and it changed from class to culture. It’s why we now have cultural Marxism, or what we call identity politics based around minorities. Cultural Marxism goes a lot deeper than equality, it’s an ideology specifically designed to destroy western values. During the Thatcher and Reagan years the left took a back seat, abandoned the workers as a revolutionary catalyst and re-discovered Gramsci. It’s why you see few workers protests anymore, but lots of minority ones.

The promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, a plurality of religions, the abolition of national identity and introduction of open borders, the drink and drugs epidemic … That’s all the result of cultural Marxism based on a type of anarchy.

When you grasp the basics of cultural Marxism, it becomes a lot easier to understand what is happening around us. There are no shortage of explanations of what cultural Marxism is and I provide an academic explanation of Cultural Marxism – Social Chaos which you can scroll down to read. If you only read the first few pages you’ll understand what happened and why.

Again no Rjan, it was called the industrial revolution because it moved away from agrarian farming to industrial mass production and the colonies funded it by cheap raw materials. We’ve lost the British Empire and just been through the biggest recession in history, so how can you say there hasn’t been an ‘economic catastrophe’?

The argument that the rich became rich by taking off the poor is a nonsense; it implies the poor were rich and had it taken from them. The poor had nothing to start with and the rich became rich because they played the economic system better than others. There’s no doubt the elite are taking advantage, but that’s the way it always was and wherever socialist policies have tried to equalize society by trying to spread the wealth around it has always failed. You already have a welfare system, medical care, a minimum wage and a pension. If others have found a way to rise above the minimum you can’t really blame them for doing so.

134

Grandpa:
Again no Rjan, it was called the industrial revolution because it moved away from agrarian farming to industrial mass production and the colonies funded it by cheap raw materials. We’ve lost the British Empire and just been through the biggest recession in history, so how can you say there hasn’t been an ‘economic catastrophe’?

The argument that the rich became rich by taking off the poor is a nonsense; it implies the poor were rich and had it taken from them. The poor had nothing to start with and the rich became rich because they played the economic system better than others. There’s no doubt the elite are taking advantage, but that’s the way it always was and wherever socialist policies have tried to equalize society by trying to spread the wealth around it has always failed. You already have a welfare system, medical care, a minimum wage and a pension. If others have found a way to rise above the minimum you can’t really blame them for doing so.

If it was supposedly the loss of the so called ‘Empire’ which wrecked our manufacturing base .Then how do you explain Britain’s industrial strength from the dates of Australian and Canadian independence until around the late 1970’s let alone the deliberate sabotage and destruction which then took place on Thatcher’s watch ?.Now awaits your usual evasion of the question tactic.

The fact is our industry and with it jobs was taken out for geopolitical reasons ( mostly meeting US foreign policy of aims keeping the Germans happy ) and the fact that exploited Commy workers provided more profit potential for the elites,than Brit workers and their unions having fought their way out of the gutter between 1930 to 1972.

135

Grandpa:

Rjan:
…

Sorry Rjan, class was the original Marxist foundation, but many years ago a theorist named Gramsci discovered that Marx got it wrong and it changed from class to culture.

If Marx got it wrong so fundamentally then it’s not Marxism! It’s that simple.

It’s why we now have cultural Marxism, or what we call identity politics based around minorities. Cultural Marxism goes a lot deeper than equality, it’s an ideology specifically designed to destroy western values. During the Thatcher and Reagan years the left took a back seat, abandoned the workers as a revolutionary catalyst and re-discovered Gramsci. It’s why you see few workers protests anymore, but lots of minority ones.

I thought during the Thatcher and Reagan years workers were not abandoned, but smashed.

You say we see no workers’ protests - why is France aflame with its gilets jaunes? It is true the British worker rarely protests nowadays, but that is because he himself is mostly cowed and unwilling to confront any real power.

The promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, a plurality of religions, the abolition of national identity and introduction of open borders, the drink and drugs epidemic … That’s all the result of cultural Marxism based on a type of anarchy.

Actually a major drink and drugs epidemic followed Thatcher’s closing of the mines in the wider context of millions being displaced onto the dole.

So too open borders, the pulling of workers hither and thither in large numbers is the product of those who worship free markets - as I showed at the beginning of this thread, the flow from one area is no sooner stemmed as the Tories seek to open up new borders (in this case, bringing Russians and Ukrainians in to do farm labour on the cheap).

As for homosexual lifestyles and plural religions, those are socially liberal positions unrelated to any Marxist theory. The only thing Marx had to say about any religion was that it kept people docile against the real powers that be.

When you grasp the basics of cultural Marxism, it becomes a lot easier to understand what is happening around us. There are no shortage of explanations of what cultural Marxism is and I provide an academic explanation of Cultural Marxism – Social Chaos which you can scroll down to read. If you only read the first few pages you’ll understand what happened and why.

(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.

Again no Rjan, it was called the industrial revolution because it moved away from agrarian farming to industrial mass production and the colonies funded it by cheap raw materials. We’ve lost the British Empire and just been through the biggest recession in history, so how can you say there hasn’t been an ‘economic catastrophe’?

The colonies provided cheap raw materials, particularly later on. And they still do.

But in the very first place the problem was how to feed industrial workers no longer engaged in agriculture. And the Tories themselves later split over the Corn Laws, the question being whether Britain would continue to produce it’s own food and industry have to compete with agriculture for both land and labour, or whether food production would be outsourced to foreign lands and the workforce move more decisively over into industrial production - domestic food independence only became important again later on when supply chains could be threatened by other powers.

The argument that the rich became rich by taking off the poor is a nonsense; it implies the poor were rich and had it taken from them. The poor had nothing to start with and the rich became rich because they played the economic system better than others. There’s no doubt the elite are taking advantage, but that’s the way it always was and wherever socialist policies have tried to equalize society by trying to spread the wealth around it has always failed. You already have a welfare system, medical care, a minimum wage and a pension. If others have found a way to rise above the minimum you can’t really blame them for doing so.

You say it has always failed, but it clearly hasn’t has it? The Russians went from backwater to superpower after confronting the Tsar. Britain went from hunger marches in the 30s to having homes with back gardens in the 60s.

And you can’t reconcile your two assertions that the poor are not being exploited and yet the “elite” are taking advantage.

Nobody is arguing for a Pol-Pot like erasure of those in society who organise or govern.

It is typical of right-wingers like yourself to suggest that when the office cleaner is charged 1,000% for payday loans and paid £5 an hour for cleaning the toilet bowl, that bears no relation to the fact that the financier is charging 1,000% for his lending service whilst paying only £5 an hour to have his toilets cleaned.

136

Well I think that’s every topic apart from religion that’s been covered. From the original thread topic being Brexit against free movement, politics, idealism’s, ■■■■■■ orientation, social substance abuse and dependency, employment, immigration, industrial action and sell offs.

137

Rjan:
It is typical of right-wingers like yourself to suggest that when the office cleaner is charged 1,000% for payday loans and paid £5 an hour for cleaning the toilet bowl, that bears no relation to the fact that the financier is charging 1,000% for his lending service whilst paying only £5 an hour to have his toilets cleaned.

^ This.Although minimum wage not £5 per hour.At least unless he’s being told to clean 8 hours worth + of toilets in 5 hours ( likely ).

On that note not only typical but as Kennedy would probably have said the unacceptable face of Capitalism.The point being that as 1960’s US showed we don’t have to accept his obvious Thatcherite Victorian apologist version.Just as ‘left’ doesn’t have to mean Stalinist.

138

Grumpy Dad:
Well I think that’s every topic apart from religion that’s been covered. From the original thread topic being Brexit against free movement, politics, idealism’s, ■■■■■■ orientation, social substance abuse and dependency, employment, immigration, industrial action and sell offs.

Education?

139

Rjan:

Grandpa:

Rjan:
…

Sorry Rjan, class was the original Marxist foundation, but many years ago a theorist named Gramsci discovered that Marx got it wrong and it changed from class to culture.

If Marx got it wrong so fundamentally then it’s not Marxism! It’s that simple.

It’s why we now have cultural Marxism, or what we call identity politics based around minorities. Cultural Marxism goes a lot deeper than equality, it’s an ideology specifically designed to destroy western values. During the Thatcher and Reagan years the left took a back seat, abandoned the workers as a revolutionary catalyst and re-discovered Gramsci. It’s why you see few workers protests anymore, but lots of minority ones.

I thought during the Thatcher and Reagan years workers were not abandoned, but smashed.

You say we see no workers’ protests - why is France aflame with its gilets jaunes? It is true the British worker rarely protests nowadays, but that is because he himself is mostly cowed and unwilling to confront any real power.

The promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, a plurality of religions, the abolition of national identity and introduction of open borders, the drink and drugs epidemic … That’s all the result of cultural Marxism based on a type of anarchy.

Actually a major drink and drugs epidemic followed Thatcher’s closing of the mines in the wider context of millions being displaced onto the dole.

So too open borders, the pulling of workers hither and thither in large numbers is the product of those who worship free markets - as I showed at the beginning of this thread, the flow from one area is no sooner stemmed as the Tories seek to open up new borders (in this case, bringing Russians and Ukrainians in to do farm labour on the cheap).

As for homosexual lifestyles and plural religions, those are socially liberal positions unrelated to any Marxist theory. The only thing Marx had to say about any religion was that it kept people docile against the real powers that be.

When you grasp the basics of cultural Marxism, it becomes a lot easier to understand what is happening around us. There are no shortage of explanations of what cultural Marxism is and I provide an academic explanation of Cultural Marxism – Social Chaos which you can scroll down to read. If you only read the first few pages you’ll understand what happened and why.

(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.

Again no Rjan, it was called the industrial revolution because it moved away from agrarian farming to industrial mass production and the colonies funded it by cheap raw materials. We’ve lost the British Empire and just been through the biggest recession in history, so how can you say there hasn’t been an ‘economic catastrophe’?

The colonies provided cheap raw materials, particularly later on. And they still do.

But in the very first place the problem was how to feed industrial workers no longer engaged in agriculture. And the Tories themselves later split over the Corn Laws, the question being whether Britain would continue to produce it’s own food and industry have to compete with agriculture for both land and labour, or whether food production would be outsourced to foreign lands and the workforce move more decisively over into industrial production - domestic food independence only became important again later on when supply chains could be threatened by other powers.

The argument that the rich became rich by taking off the poor is a nonsense; it implies the poor were rich and had it taken from them. The poor had nothing to start with and the rich became rich because they played the economic system better than others. There’s no doubt the elite are taking advantage, but that’s the way it always was and wherever socialist policies have tried to equalize society by trying to spread the wealth around it has always failed. You already have a welfare system, medical care, a minimum wage and a pension. If others have found a way to rise above the minimum you can’t really blame them for doing so.

You say it has always failed, but it clearly hasn’t has it? The Russians went from backwater to superpower after confronting the Tsar. Britain went from hunger marches in the 30s to having homes with back gardens in the 60s.

And you can’t reconcile your two assertions that the poor are not being exploited and yet the “elite” are taking advantage.

Nobody is arguing for a Pol-Pot like erasure of those in society who organise or govern.

It is typical of right-wingers like yourself to suggest that when the office cleaner is charged 1,000% for payday loans and paid £5 an hour for cleaning the toilet bowl, that bears no relation to the fact that the financier is charging 1,000% for his lending service whilst paying only £5 an hour to have his toilets cleaned.

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

‘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.

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.

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?

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.

And you go on …

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

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

Another lost in space socialist! :slight_smile:

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.

140

Grumpy Dad:
Well I think that’s every topic apart from religion that’s been covered. From the original thread topic being Brexit against free movement, politics, idealism’s, ■■■■■■ orientation, social substance abuse and dependency, employment, immigration, industrial action and sell offs.

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. The EU filled the vacuum left after the fall of the Soviet Union and why its system is so similar with anti-democracy, authoritarianism and five year plans. The so-called socialists here are left wondering why we have multiculturalism, diversity and equality policies and laws that are rubber stamped into law by pro-EU leaders, such as the working time directive, the fishing quotas or agricultural policies – they all came out of the EU.

What about pretend socialists and former EU Commissioners Kinnock and Mandelson (both Lords now so tug yer forelock), both with early links to left wing extremists. Do you think those two sat up at night worrying about the workers? How about champagne millionaire socialists Blair, Ed Balls and Milliband? Take a look at the backgrounds of the current and previous EU leaders, it’s like a communist who’s who!

Why are people complaining about working conditions? The EU is socialist, you get the minimum wage where you all eventually meet at the bottom in a country without borders full of cheap foreign labour in a multicultural melting pot. It was never any different in any socialist set-up. I’ve asked these pretend socialists to show me a socialist country where workers rose above a bare minimum and that didn’t eventually collapse. Silence!

OK, listen to a former Soviet Union defector describe the EU in 4½ minutes.