Breaking. Met Police launches investigation into Downing Street parties,

[HDQQ]

Now the PM is hinting claiming the departures from No.10 were part of a planned refresh. Meanwhile Nadine Dorries is claiming 97% of Tory MPs support Johnson and the 3% that don't are remainers plotting against him.

Both these wild claims look like nonsense but as we all know, lots of people are prepared to believe nonsense.

Among Tory MPs there are those who have always been against Johnson, particularly if they were remainers - that much is probably true. But who else might turn against him? Those who felt he was never the right man for the job but went along with him as the only dish on the Tory menu and importantly, those who were loyal to him but have decided (reluctantly?) that they can no longer support him. I think Dorries is trying to appeal to the second two groups, to try and win them round.

As for Michael Gove's support for Johnson - it looks like he's gambling on staying "loyal" (yeah, right!) up until any leadership contest is announced. Remember that in 2016 Gove described Johnson as being "unfit to be PM because he's a national security risk and has emotional need to gossip."

Bit of a mystery how Gove could think better of Johnson now than he did back then, eh?

[HDQQ]

The various lockdowns our government imposed were the correct thing to do, even if they were imposed too late and lifted too early. The fact that the top people in the very government broke their own rules doesn't make the rules bad, it makes those people bad. The danger from partygate is that people think if the government can't stick to their own rules, then why should anyone? So if Johnson remains as PM and the covid situation calls for another lockdown in the future, he's less likely to impose one because of the controversy surrounding his own behaviour.

[Sheepy]

Breaking, inferno turns into damp squid. 

[srb7677]

Karl? No but Boris's uncle Harpo was(same haircut) he did the entertainment.
https://youtu.be/GArbUV_yv2k

I heard they tried to hire a clown to provide the entertainment, but Boris feared being upstaged so vetoed the idea.

[cromwell]

Was Marx at the parties? Send him a fixed penalty notice!

Karl? No but Boris's uncle Harpo was(same haircut) he did the entertainment.
https://youtu.be/GArbUV_yv2k

[HDQQ]

I doubt that Rees Mogg wants to be PM and even if he is he is too nice.

Nice? Really? Are you sure you're not confusing him with Postman Pat? (I mean the real one on TV)

[Barry]

Was Marx at the parties? Send him a fixed penalty notice! 

[B0ycey]

Splendid chaps.

Marx wrote about the reformation of the capitalist system while being unable to hang onto enough to pay his rent. And Engels was a rich socialist waiting for someone to invent Islington.

And Das Kapital! The first chapter says that anything can be used as a medium of exchange and the second that the values are not always the same. And by the time you have reached chapter three of this arse numblingly obvious Teutonic tosh you are thinking about running away to a Gulag somewhere and making a final attempt to finish Mein Kampf. Not that that is a million laughs. A country boy goes off to the big city where no one understands him and everyone is against him and you think oh shit, why are the Huns allowed to write books in the first place? It is all gloom and doom and a bit more gloom and doom to finish up with.

The first chapter is use value and the second is on exchange. And that isn't getting to main selling point which is surplus labor where others profit from your work because they own the means of production and nothing else. But even so, the point of Das Kapital was to highlight the unfairness of the Capitalist economic model and not so much to explain what or how another economic model will replace it. There are plenty of references to Socialism I guess, which it should be said does work well in key sectors and as such proves Marx right.

[B0ycey]

Whilst Marx has valid things to say, there are many problems with his analysis and predictions.

He was writing at a time when democracy was severely limited, most workers had no vote and he assumed that the ruling classes would never give it to them. He also assumed that the capitalist ruling elites would become ever more exploitative, making the workers ever poorer whilst they grew ever richer, and that inevitably they would have no choice but to revolt and overthrow them.

Of course he was wrong on several counts. The ruling classes did gradually give the vote to all, and relied on two things. Extending sufficient prosperity to enough people to be able to win enough support to stay in power, and control of the media narrative to propagandise enough of the working class to back them too. The state also began to legislate to protect workers and the poor, by the introduction of pensions and sickness benefits, then unemployment benefits, and ultimately education and healthcare free at the point of use. Marx never imagined that this would happen.

Also the unions became instrumental in setting up a party to give workers representation in parliament itself. That was the Labour party in the beginning when it was a genuine party of the workers. Of course, the party has long since betrayed that legacy.

It is noteworthy that today and in recent decades in general, certainly in this country, things do seem to be moving in a direction that better conforms to Marxist predictions. Welfare and support mechanisms run by the state have been cut or reduced, free higher education is no longer free. Work contracts are becoming ever more exploitative, wages are not keeping pace with the real cost of living, we are noticing that we are getting ever poorer whilst the wealthy elites grow ever fatter. And the owners are sucking ever more wealth out of the pockets of workers, not least via ever rising rents.

But Marx is still likely to be wrong where it matters. The ruling elites are very successful at deflecting blame from themselves by using their media outlets to provide scapegoats, which have in recent decades of course included asylum seekers, the wicked EU, and welfare claimants. People are encouraged to hate those who have even less than they do, rather than blaming those who are actually making all the decisions. Marx never forsaw the effectiveness with which the wealthy elites would use tabloid journalism and state sponsored media outlets to manipulate the thought processes of the masses. And yet if - in spite of that - things get so bad for so many people that they see through the propaganda and want to overthrow the system, they need only use the ballot box, as they did in 1945 when they wanted radical change. The predicted workers' revolution in terms of barricades in the streets and storming palaces and parliament is never likely to happen. And it could only really ever happen eventually if legitimate outlets for change were removed by the elimination of democracy.

It is after all extremely rare for functioning democracies to be overthrown by revolutions. Violent revolutions tend to overthrow only governments that are authoritarian in some way, ie in states where the ballot box is not available as a viable route for change.

Mate, the Communist Manifesto was merely a commissioned pamphlet written by Marx for the purpose of the British Communist Party. I don't disagree with most of what you wrote, but there isn't really any details of what Communism is or the problems of Capitalism in it. For that you have to read Das Kapital which is correct in most of its analysis. Marx does explain most of the flaws in Capitalism well. It was of course a joke response by me, but even so Communism can work given every other member of the animal kingdom works under it founding principles which are cooperation, sharing resources, having what you need and provide what you can supply. And if you want a better analysis of why it can work, you need to read Kropotkins Mutual Aid for why Communism will work under human instinct.

The problem with Capitalism is the principle of private property. That is a human construct and doesn't exist outside your imagination. Why you are reliant for others for your needs is because humans are the only species on Earth who pay to live and handicapped from birth if you are born poor. Without the principle of debt, there is no need to gain unfairly and we are cooperative by instinct. 

[Borchester]

Can I introduce you to this...



The answers are out there.

Splendid chaps.

Marx wrote about the reformation of the capitalist system while being unable to hang onto enough to pay his rent. And Engels was a rich socialist waiting for someone to invent Islington.

And Das Kapital! The first chapter says that anything can be used as a medium of exchange and the second that the values are not always the same. And by the time you have reached chapter three of this arse numblingly obvious Teutonic tosh you are thinking about running away to a Gulag somewhere and making a final attempt to finish Mein Kampf. Not that that is a million laughs. A country boy goes off to the big city where no one understands him and everyone is against him and you think oh shit, why are the Huns allowed to write books in the first place? It is all gloom and doom and a bit more gloom and doom to finish up with.

[srb7677]

Well on the Brightside Starmer says we are all being taken for mugs

Yeah, including by Starmer himself.

[Sheepy]

Well on the Brightside Starmer says we are all being taken for mugs; how true he has been at it long enough. He should know. 

[srb7677]

Can I introduce you to this...



The answers are out there.

Whilst Marx has valid things to say, there are many problems with his analysis and predictions.

He was writing at a time when democracy was severely limited, most workers had no vote and he assumed that the ruling classes would never give it to them. He also assumed that the capitalist ruling elites would become ever more exploitative, making the workers ever poorer whilst they grew ever richer, and that inevitably they would have no choice but to revolt and overthrow them.

Of course he was wrong on several counts. The ruling classes did gradually give the vote to all, and relied on two things. Extending sufficient prosperity to enough people to be able to win enough support to stay in power, and control of the media narrative to propagandise enough of the working class to back them too. The state also began to legislate to protect workers and the poor, by the introduction of pensions and sickness benefits, then unemployment benefits, and ultimately education and healthcare free at the point of use. Marx never imagined that this would happen.

Also the unions became instrumental in setting up a party to give workers representation in parliament itself. That was the Labour party in the beginning when it was a genuine party of the workers. Of course, the party has long since betrayed that legacy.

It is noteworthy that today and in recent decades in general, certainly in this country, things do seem to be moving in a direction that better conforms to Marxist predictions. Welfare and support mechanisms run by the state have been cut or reduced, free higher education is no longer free. Work contracts are becoming ever more exploitative, wages are not keeping pace with the real cost of living, we are noticing that we are getting ever poorer whilst the wealthy elites grow ever fatter. And the owners are sucking ever more wealth out of the pockets of workers, not least via ever rising rents.

But Marx is still likely to be wrong where it matters. The ruling elites are very successful at deflecting blame from themselves by using their media outlets to provide scapegoats, which have in recent decades of course included asylum seekers, the wicked EU, and welfare claimants. People are encouraged to hate those who have even less than they do, rather than blaming those who are actually making all the decisions. Marx never forsaw the effectiveness with which the wealthy elites would use tabloid journalism and state sponsored media outlets to manipulate the thought processes of the masses. And yet if - in spite of that - things get so bad for so many people that they see through the propaganda and want to overthrow the system, they need only use the ballot box, as they did in 1945 when they wanted radical change. The predicted workers' revolution in terms of barricades in the streets and storming palaces and parliament is never likely to happen. And it could only really ever happen eventually if legitimate outlets for change were removed by the elimination of democracy.

It is after all extremely rare for functioning democracies to be overthrown by revolutions. Violent revolutions tend to overthrow only governments that are authoritarian in some way, ie in states where the ballot box is not available as a viable route for change.

[B0ycey]

I certainly want us to be a better country with prosperity for all and not just for a minority, where hard work is again the route to that prosperity, not ownership of assets. None of which makes me a better man by the way, just someone who recognises that our political and economic system is broken and wants something better.

Can I introduce you to this...



The answers are out there.

[srb7677]

You on the other hand, are a better man than most of us and are looking for a new home and a better world

I certainly want us to be a better country with prosperity for all and not just for a minority, where hard work is again the route to that prosperity, not ownership of assets. None of which makes me a better man by the way, just someone who recognises that our political and economic system is broken and wants something better.