Yes......Britain IS run by Marxists
The letter (written over 24 years ago) is written by Blair to socialist politician Michael Foot, urging him to adopt radical Left-Wing policies and not to become a "prisoner of the right". A few captions have been listed below explaining the content of this letter, written on July 28th, 1982. Tony Blair wrote:
- "Like many middle-class people, i came to Socialism through Marxism...I found it illuminating in so many ways".
- "We [the Labour Party] have a constitution and we have firm principles on which that constitution is founded" (ie: renationalisation).
- "Socialism ultimately must appeal to the better minds of the people".
- "In a party of the Left there should always be room for differences of opinion".
Blair also wrote about how the Labour party should adopt "radical, socialist policies", and how Karl Marx himself had "irreversibly alerted" his views on society.
Now, with this letter in mind, not only am i deeply concerned about our Prime-Ministers political roots and beliefs, but im also concerned about how he has changed his mind again and again just to appeal to the British public.
Despite his support for Marx in his letter, he was actually quoted a few weeks later saying he rejected Marxism because he found it "stifling". In addition, in 1981, Blair stated that he admired Margaret Thatcher, but later accused her of "rigid populism" and "economic madness" in the letter a year later.
So much for the old "Dave the Chameleon" campaign criticising him of "flip-flopping" between policies I guess.
Even former Labour minister Peter Kilfoyle said that Mr.Blair:
"...has carried his journey all the way across the political spectrum. I wonder where he will go next"?
So, not only does it seem that we have a Prime-Minister who has communist roots (and potentially might still do)...but we also have a Prime-Minister who merely changes his political opinion just to suit his popularity needs with the British public (something which he criticised David Cameron for doing in the local election campaign on May 2006).
Chris Palmer (another political blogger) has frequently written about the far left within British politics, disguising themselves as Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party. At first, i always thought that perhaps he was exaggerating such a theory, but when this letter is brought to the House of Commons (potentially next week in PMQT), it may be the case that his theories were not so radical after all. Either way, the possibility also arises that British political thought could now change towards "New Labour"...and you never know, we may even see a general election fought like that in 1924 (with the Conservatives versus the Pro-Soviet Labour Party under Ramsay MacDonald).
So much for a "new, modernised" Labour party i guess!
Blair: New Labour Politician or Marxist enthusiast?
posted by James.R.Skinner at 11:08 am
19 Comments:
Well unfortunately for you, your normative statement seems some-what minor compared to the positive statements shwon in this article.
You claim Blair is "Right-Wing"...i disagree.
Since when did increasing the national minimum wage, increasing unemployment pay, increasing government bureacracy, increasing political correctness and increasing the limitations of public schools become Right-Wing policies?
I think you are gravely mistaken. Blair "claims" to have taken the Centre ground, but in reality (as this 24 year old letter shows), he is Old Labour through and through.
No, infact i believe they would have decreased job seekers allowance as part of their economic supply-side policies, hence increasing economic growth in the long term. Further more, did it ever occur to Gordon Brown that increasing the minimum wage within the economy's given circumstances might be inflationary? Apparently not.
I thank you for your comments and indeed your compliments but i fail to see how sympathy comes into this.
All im saying is that if wages are increasing (with inflation also), then increasing the minimum wage becomes completely unneccessary, and increasing job seekers allowance just increases the incentive for residual unemployment.
I agree with you, Labour have lowered unemplyment down to 5% within the economy, but we cannot eliminate the fact also that much research has been conducted on unemployment, including a lawyer (with 3 children) who worked out in 2005 that she would be £4360 better off (financially) by signing up to unemployment pay.
Far from exposing some red under the bed I think this simple exposes once again that Blair will say or do whatever it takes to achive whatever objective he's set himself.
Back then it was pretending to be a raving trot in order to suck up to the powers that be and gain advancement within the Labour Party.
In the nineties it was adopting Thatcherite policies so the voters would put him into Downing Street.
In the new millenium it's taking ever more ill-considered decisions, often contrary to logic or the foundations of British law, to try and shore up his authority and create a lasting legacy.
In a profession of crooks and mountebanks, Blair is a prince amongst his peers.
RM
Quite agreed, but yet he has the audacity to criticise Cameron "flip-flopping" between policies! Hypocracy at its best if you ask me.
What do you expect...with Tony Blair, old labour is never too far away from new labour.
I do find myself wondering that sometimes too!
Here are a couple of points you side-stepped:
(1) We're talking £5.05 per hour, working out at a salary of less than £10,000 per year.
Ask your parents if they would work for that amount.
(2) Have you ever come into contact with anyone disadvantaged or vulnerable, or even someone just struggling to cope with life?
Supply-side economics is all very well, but one significant challenge is to make the political personal (and vice versa).
Still, while we're talking about the figures, you assert that the minimum wage has been 'inflationary', which is interesting. Would you care to talk further about U.K. inflation rates during the 1980s (Thatcher's decade) and over the last ten years...?
Perhaps you would like to counter that argument by explaining the recessionary years in the 1970's (under Harold Wilson)?
I believe Thatcher actually took over the UK when Labour practically left it bankrupt!
Hi my friends! I'm writing to you because I just came across a business that I think has great potential. It lets you save money on almost everything. Make money from almost everything, Including home loans- plus... help lower your taxes--best of all--it requires absolutely no investment. I thought you might be interested and like to check it out...
Here I have a residual income opportunities site/blog. It successfully covers residual income opportunities related stuff and almost everything else!
Come and check it out if you get time, Scott.
Perhaps you would like to counter that argument by explaining the recessionary years in the 1970's (under Harold Wilson)?
I don't have to - that's not my point. I don't intend to defend anything and everything any Labour Government ever did.
It's just that the inflation that the minimum wage was going to cause never showed up.
Back to The_Thinker_82's point, still unanswered, about basic decency and making politics personal:
We're talking £5.05 per hour, working out at a salary of less than £10,000 per year.
Ask your parents if they would work for that amount.
Karl Marx would be turning in his grave if he could see the Blair brand of his philosophy.
Clearly socialism is lost cause as seen by the strength of the U.S. economy driving down its deficit during war time.
Socialism is all about me, me, me in the guise of caring for others.
Hyprocrisy is a liberal disease.
As they say, within socialism: there are those who are equal, and then there are those who are more equal than others.
All the immigration into Britain is the proof of his communist ideologies.
They are anarchists.
These Marxists starts slowly. They introduce their policies step by step.
You will be like a frog in water that becomes hotter & hotter. Before the General public realizes it, Britain will be a Marxists State.
The communist ideologies are introduced over a long period.
" if wages are increasing (with inflation also), then increasing the minimum wage becomes completely unneccessary"
What curious logic! If the minimum wage rises, then average wages rise. If however average wages rise, then the statutory minimum wage remains a wholly independent variable, and can just as easily fall as rise. Did you get on O level in maths or in "making-stuff-up"?
If wages for the usual sector [Lawyers, Doctors, MPs] increases by 500%, what causal impact does this have on wages for other 75% of the UK [nurses, binmen, bus drivers, cleaners]? I suggest that it has none whatseover. It may impact - marginally - upon inflation for certain products (think Rolls Royce & Rolex) but actually would incerase the effective demand for lower prices for the stuff that is universally required: food, clothes, slum dwellings.
"To make the rich work harder, one pays them more. To make the poor work harder, pay them less" ... or so it is said by Thomas Malthus, Jeremy Bentham, Mr Beedle, E. Scrooge & C19th cotton farmers...
"Clearly socialism is lost cause as seen by the strength of the U.S. economy driving down its deficit during war time. "
So, socialism is measured in terms of the size of an economy? Hurrah for 1933-1942 Germany, then, which turned its crippled & ailing economy into the economic powerhouse that drove a highly efficient and economic war machine to our very shores.
It is very easy to drive down a trade deficit: simply (1) be the biggest country on the plant, (2) deploy slaves to work in the farms, (3) spend an awful lot of money internally in making tanks & planes & bombs & guns, and selling them to, ooh, I dunno, Germany, Russia, England, China and Japan. (4) Don't get caught.
Post a Comment
<< Home